Back to the citation fray: I think the ROLE attribute of vcard means something different than what you guys were describing with a role.
You were saying role = "what this person's relationship to the cited work is" I dug around for the vcard rfc, which says that the ROLE vcard attribute is based on job description, so for the hcard, role = "what this person does for a living". It is also supposedly intended to draw from a list of roles described as business category or occupation, in (ANSI?) X.509, which I can't find online. I can easily imagine wanting the vcard role in addition to the citation role - for instance, on my CV page I want to have a single hcard for myself with the role "graduate student", while my role on each paper I cite in my references list may be different. Unfortunately I don't have an answer for how I think we should mark up roles. I agree that having a creator,role,value structure is nice, but I can't think of a good way to mark it up. There's nothing I know of that's marking things up like that out there on the web, and unless it's a coincidence, all discussion on this topic stopped once we got onto the role idea. I stopped because I was waiting for an idea to come to me about how to write that in XHTML. The only ideas I have come up with involve hiding the span containing the role with CSS. If we just have a single creator class (and a small number of other role classes), we can do this: <span class="vcard creator"> /*my vcard*/</span> with roles, we could do this: <span class="vcard"><span class="role">author</span>/*my vcard info*/</span> but that clashes with the vcard 'role' attribute, which may be OK but may not. If we are parsing this, do we have to treat hcards that are in a citation differently from hcards elsewhere? (In order to avoid losing the 'role' element to the hcard, or to first look for a 'citerole' element or something before passing it off to an hcard parser?) I'd like to avoid that extra complexity. Does anyone have a good suggestion for marking this up? I'm not sure if I'm missing an obvious good solution here. Thanks, -mike On 9/1/06, Bruce D'Arcus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 8/31/06, Timothy Gambell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] > > hCard has a role term, though I don't know if it is consistent with > > this? > > Certainly an appealing possibility. Unless the proprietors of hCard > object, I think we should use it. Do you agree? Well, the problem with role to me is the semantics are unclear (a role isn't really a property of a person, but a relation between a person and some other thing). But I really have no strong opinion. > > It is; really more a "producer". The DC group considers it a > > contributor, and has wanted to get rid of dc:publisher and use that > > instead. > > Dropping publisher and marking it up as a contributor with a role of > publisher sounds like a good proposal to me. I'm not saying to drop it really; just giving an example of how to think about it. Bruce _______________________________________________ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
-- Michael McCracken UCSD CSE PhD Candidate research: http://www.cse.ucsd.edu/~mmccrack/ misc: http://michael-mccracken.net/wp/ _______________________________________________ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
