Re: [uf-discuss] Citation: next steps?
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
Re: genealogy (was Re: life, death and address books (was Re: [uf-discuss] hCard and Life Dates?))
Hi Tantek and Atamido, I think genealogy is more about relationships (ie marriage, parent child, etc) than individual biographies. A genealogy microformat, to my way of thinking, would borrow more from XFN than hCard. To deal with life dates and other biographical information (like, gender, nationality, life events, etc) I think it would be more elegant to have a separate biography format, based on hCard. A biography format could serve as a building block for geneology, citation, movie credits, etc. Just my two cents. Your thoughts? Tim. On Apr 19, 2006, at 4:58 PM, Tantek Çelik wrote: On 4/19/06 2:29 PM, Atamido [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Not that I'm proposing that hCard be used for genealogy, but if a genealogy format were made it would likely pull all relevant classes from hCard. In fact, it would probably just be an hCard with a few missing/additional classes. Atamido, Your suggestion is right on. Reframing this question as: How do we represent genealogy information as it is published on the Web? is the best way IMHO to proceed with this discussion. Start with http://microformats.org/wiki/genealogy-examples and let's go from there. Thanks, Tantek ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
[uf-discuss] hCard and Life Dates?
Hi All, How do I say Albert Einstein (March 14, 1879 – April 18, 1955) using hCard? Specifically, what is the best way of expressing a person's life dates? bday seems like an obvious choice for date of birth. Would adding a term like dday be appropriate for date of death? Or would it be better to use dtstart and dtend from hCalendar? This feels more elegant, except that bday is a more semantically precise than dtstart. Or maybe some hybrid? perhaps class=bday dtstart for birthday and class=dtend for death date? Tim.___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
Re: [uf-discuss] Re: work of art microformat
Hi Greg,Thanks for the heads up on that one. I confused that part of last night's rough schema. In fact, the Source category is for a citation about where the information came from (as you recommend), and the Location category is intended for information about where the work of art is physically located. Dublin Core and VRA Core are in agreement on that one (and there are even some examples of Source vs. Location down at the bottom of the VRA Core page: http://www.vraweb.org/vracore3.htm)That said, since the source of the citation is a characteristic common to all citations, I'd be inclined to keep it out of the work of art microformat and instead try to get it included in the citation microformat.Tim.On Apr 14, 2006, at 7:36 AM, Greg Elin wrote:Tim,Have you considered adding a parameter or two indicating who created the citation. Citations in the paper world (e.g., footnotes, endnotes) are locked into the document they exit. Citations in the digital world can float freely -- that's the point of microformats. Hence, it makes sense to track the pedigree of the citation as well as the art itself. just a thought.Greg ElinOn 4/14/06, Timothy Gambell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Thanks to everyone for their thoughts, input, and contributions tothe http://microformats.org/wiki/work-of-art project.Given the recommendations on the wiki and this list, it seems to methat it would be best to design work of art as a distinct group of optional additions to use with the citation microformat. Does thisseem like a good idea?To address a few of the questions that have come up on the list:Why not just add to or merge with citation? Though -- as Ryan Cannon and Bruce D'Arcus point out -- works of art on websites areconceptually similar to book citations on websites, the museumcommunity and the library community have developed differentconventions for presenting information about their holdings. Since there isn't a 1:1 mapping between these conventions, combiningcitation and work of art would probably result in more complexity(for citation) and less descriptive utility (for work of art).However, I'd be interested to hear if the folks involved with citation think it would be an acceptable trade-off.Why not make work of art into a subsection of citation, as adr is tohCard? This might be a good idea, and it's one I'm open to, but itshould be noted that while adr can express meaningful information on its own (that is, without the help of hCard), the proposed work ofart extensions would rely on citation for core terms, and would notbe able to express meaningful information without citation's help.Does that matter? For the sake of discussion, I've compiled a comparison between theterms in the citation strawman on the wiki and some of the terms thathave been proposed for work of art.=== Rough list new of terms we'd propose for work of art (contributed by Samantha Orme, tweaked by Tim) ===* creator (hCard)* creator-dates* creator-nationality* creator-role* creation-date (hCalendar)* earliest-date* latest-date* type (the style/period/genre of the work -- merged with "subject" into citation's "keywords" field?)* subject (the subject matter of the work -- merged with "type" intocitation's "keywords" field?)* measurements ("format"? "dimensions"?) * width* height* depth* duration* medium* source ("Current Location"? "Repository"? "Owner"? "Collection"? --combined with location using hCard) * source-location (hCard or geo or adr)* provenance (perhaps a list of hCalendar events, could allow for"Gift Of" if that information isn't included in copyright or notes)=== Rough list of terms we'd use from citation (compiled from the Mike Strawman) ===* title* subtitle* authors (as a special case of "creator")* publication date (though we'd prefer "date", and even better"earliest-date" and "latest-date") * link* uid (though we'd prefer the term "identifier")* pages (though this is only useful when the work of art is a book)* series (CDWA's "Related Work")* venue ("source" information could go here, depending on what's meant by venue)* publisher (occasionally useful)* container (CDWA's "Related Work")* abstract* notes (CDWA's "Descriptive Note" field)* keywords (potentially a combination of "subject" and "type") * image* copyright* languageAgain, thanks to everyone who has been involved with the work of artproject.All best,Tim.___microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.orghttp://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss -- Greg Elinhttp://fotonotes.net - Because photos have stories (TM)http://duhblog.com___microformats-discuss mailing listmicroformats-discuss@m
[uf-discuss] Re: work of art microformat
Thanks to everyone for their thoughts, input, and contributions to the http://microformats.org/wiki/work-of-art project. Given the recommendations on the wiki and this list, it seems to me that it would be best to design work of art as a distinct group of optional additions to use with the citation microformat. Does this seem like a good idea? To address a few of the questions that have come up on the list: Why not just add to or merge with citation? Though -- as Ryan Cannon and Bruce D'Arcus point out -- works of art on websites are conceptually similar to book citations on websites, the museum community and the library community have developed different conventions for presenting information about their holdings. Since there isn't a 1:1 mapping between these conventions, combining citation and work of art would probably result in more complexity (for citation) and less descriptive utility (for work of art). However, I'd be interested to hear if the folks involved with citation think it would be an acceptable trade-off. Why not make work of art into a subsection of citation, as adr is to hCard? This might be a good idea, and it's one I'm open to, but it should be noted that while adr can express meaningful information on its own (that is, without the help of hCard), the proposed work of art extensions would rely on citation for core terms, and would not be able to express meaningful information without citation's help. Does that matter? For the sake of discussion, I've compiled a comparison between the terms in the citation strawman on the wiki and some of the terms that have been proposed for work of art. === Rough list new of terms we'd propose for work of art (contributed by Samantha Orme, tweaked by Tim) === * creator (hCard) * creator-dates * creator-nationality * creator-role * creation-date (hCalendar) * earliest-date * latest-date * type (the style/period/genre of the work -- merged with subject into citation's keywords field?) * subject (the subject matter of the work -- merged with type into citation's keywords field?) * measurements (format? dimensions?) * width * height * depth * duration * medium * source (Current Location? Repository? Owner? Collection? -- combined with location using hCard) * source-location (hCard or geo or adr) * provenance (perhaps a list of hCalendar events, could allow for Gift Of if that information isn't included in copyright or notes) === Rough list of terms we'd use from citation (compiled from the Mike Strawman) === * title * subtitle * authors (as a special case of creator) * publication date (though we'd prefer date, and even better earliest-date and latest-date) * link * uid (though we'd prefer the term identifier) * pages (though this is only useful when the work of art is a book) * series (CDWA's Related Work) * venue (source information could go here, depending on what's meant by venue) * publisher (occasionally useful) * container (CDWA's Related Work) * abstract * notes (CDWA's Descriptive Note field) * keywords (potentially a combination of subject and type) * image * copyright * language Again, thanks to everyone who has been involved with the work of art project. All best, Tim. ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
