On Aug 30, 2006, at 12:42 PM, Michael McCracken wrote:
I'm not convinced that a formalized Dublin Core microformat class set is necessary for a good citation microformat, and I do think it'd be a distraction to getting the main goal completed.
A modular system with hDC broken out does seem a little complex. I'm happy to borrow from hCite, and I'd hope that hCite would be designed to have pieces reused.
I say that because I'm interested in using hCite to describe works of art. From my point of view, class names based on DC's very general terms seem like a good choice, class names based on a medium specific citation format like BibTeX seem less good.
For example, BibTeX's "author" field implies the medium of the cited work (if it has an author, it must be text). This makes it difficult to reuse terminology: what if I'm talking about something that had a painter, not an author? Using a more general term, like DC's "creator" get's the same work done, and is more easily reused: it can be applied to text, paintings, websites, and so on.
It would be great, then, if hCite were to be a superset of DC, using more medium specific terms from something like BibTeX only when no adequate alternative existed in DC. This way we sidestep the distraction of creating a DC format, but get the benefit of generic terms in the larger microformats class name pool.
Thanks, Tim _______________________________________________ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
