On 9/25/06, Ross Singer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That would be a reasonable option, though I'd also suggest a more
> generic "document" fallback (because real world citation practice just
> doesn't fit pre-defined boxes). Also, *if* you have a container typed
> as a "journal" then you also need a broader "periodical."
>
Well, periodical is fine... it could be mapped to journal (and
monograph to book -- I mean, that seems like the logical analogy).
The labels aren't that important as long as we can kind of match them
(and, no doubt, OpenURL is an inexact science). I don't know, there
seems to be a balance that can be struck -- universality vs. immediate
functionality (and I think some balance needs to be struck in both
directions).
I agree, and part of it is just defininig a core model that can be
logically extended without pain. Goes back to my suggestion that
thinking in terms of class hierarchy is helpful. You start with the
basics and then if need be, let people extend them.
So start with:
- Document
- Book
- Chapter
- Article
- Report
- Collection
- Periodical
- Journal
- Event
- Conference
... or something like that.
In fact, if someone wants to work with me on revising the
documentation for my bibliographic schema (current new working title
is "Description of Citation Sources" (DOCS), but I suck at names, so
that might change) to clearly segment out a core set of types per
above, I'm happy to do that.
Something like this:
<http://www.users.muohio.edu/darcusb/citations/classes.png>
Bruce
_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
