On Aug 30, 2006, at 8:29 PM, Michael McCracken wrote:
Is the situation of semantic markup just as bad in the art world as it
seems to be in my area?
Mike,
Yeah, the semantic markup situation is pretty messy in the museum
world, too. There are some credible efforts to come to some consensus
about how we describe works of art, but I'm not going to hold my breath.
Do you have any examples you could add that show how works of art are
being marked up on the web?
Markup examples can be found at http://microformats.org/wiki/
workofart-examples, documention of formats is at http://
microformats.org/wiki/workofart-formats, and brainstorming is at
http://microformats.org/wiki/workofart-brainstorming.
I'd be happy to add those examples and formats to the citation pages
on the wiki, but in the name of keeping hCite simple, I figured it
would be best to keep work of art distinct. My plan was to wait for
hCite to solidify, and then use workofart as a place for specialized
art terms that don't have a place in hCite (for example: materials,
technique, provenance, and location). Or, I could forget about that
and just try to merge work of art with hCite.
What do you think?
Thanks,
Tim
_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
