[gcs-pcs-list] citation microformat

1 view
Skip to first unread message

Andy Mabbett

unread,
Mar 21, 2007, 12:34:22 PM3/21/07
to gcs-pc...@googlegroups.com

Almost a year ago, Ed wrote:

>Off and on for the past year there has been discussion in the
>microformats.org community about establishing a microformat for
>citations. The effort is similar to ocoins in that both are embedding
>citation data in HTML so that it can be easily repurposed.

That discussion is on-going; I'm keen to move it towards a conclusion.

Please feel free to participate on the wiki:

<http://microformats.org/wiki/citation> et seq

or mailing list:

<http://microformats.org/discuss/mail/microformats-new/2007-March/000050.html>
aka:
<http://tinyurl.com/2f2z6p>

--
Andy Mabbett
* Say "NO!" to compulsory ID Cards: <http://www.no2id.net/>
* Free Our Data: <http://www.freeourdata.org.uk>
* Are you using Microformats, yet: <http://microformats.org/> ?

Hammond, Tony

unread,
Mar 21, 2007, 12:56:15 PM3/21/07
to gcs-pc...@googlegroups.com
Well, we're kind of interested too to see where this effort is going. I
also just posted a couple links the other day to the wiki to DOI and to
INFO URI. Both (well especially DOI) being strangely absent form the
wiki afaict. And DOI is kind of inportant for citing non-archived
articles such as produced by various STM endeavours in
article-by-article publishing.

Cheers,

Tony


********************************************************************************
DISCLAIMER: This e-mail is confidential and should not be used by anyone who is
not the original intended recipient. If you have received this e-mail in error
please inform the sender and delete it from your mailbox or any other storage
mechanism. Neither Macmillan Publishers Limited nor any of its agents accept
liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not
expressly made on behalf of Macmillan Publishers Limited or one of its agents.
Please note that neither Macmillan Publishers Limited nor any of its agents
accept any responsibility for viruses that may be contained in this e-mail or
its attachments and it is your responsibility to scan the e-mail and
attachments (if any). No contracts may be concluded on behalf of Macmillan
Publishers Limited or its agents by means of e-mail communication. Macmillan
Publishers Limited Registered in England and Wales with registered number 785998
Registered Office Brunel Road, Houndmills, Basingstoke RG21 6XS
********************************************************************************

Edward Summers

unread,
Mar 21, 2007, 4:29:22 PM3/21/07
to gcs-pc...@googlegroups.com

On Mar 21, 2007, at 12:56 PM, Hammond, Tony wrote:

>
> Well, we're kind of interested too to see where this effort is
> going. I
> also just posted a couple links the other day to the wiki to DOI
> and to
> INFO URI. Both (well especially DOI) being strangely absent form the
> wiki afaict. And DOI is kind of inportant for citing non-archived
> articles such as produced by various STM endeavours in
> article-by-article publishing.

Searching on the wiki for DOI doesn't seem to work for some reason.
Perhaps because it's too short.

If you look at http://microformats.org/wiki?title=citation-
brainstorming and search in page for "DOI" you'll find some mention.

This whole citation effort needs a whole lot of distillation and
clarity I think. Perhaps we can band together and make it happen?

//Ed

Edward Summers

unread,
Mar 21, 2007, 4:29:39 PM3/21/07
to gcs-pc...@googlegroups.com

On Mar 21, 2007, at 12:34 PM, Andy Mabbett wrote:
> That discussion is on-going; I'm keen to move it towards a conclusion.

A conclusion would be wonderful. With Brian Suda's work it seems
pretty close to being done.

//Ed

Andy Mabbett

unread,
Mar 22, 2007, 10:16:07 AM3/22/07
to gcs-pc...@googlegroups.com
In message <DF4A4707-5C6C-4F8B...@pobox.com>, Edward
Summers <e...@pobox.com> writes

>Searching on the wiki for DOI doesn't seem to work for some reason.
>Perhaps because it's too short.

You can use Google:

<http://www.google.com/search?q=doi&sitesearch=microformats.org>

Ross Singer

unread,
Mar 22, 2007, 11:32:35 PM3/22/07
to gcs-pc...@googlegroups.com
On 3/22/07, Andy Mabbett <an...@pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote:

>Searching on the wiki for DOI doesn't seem to work for some reason.
>Perhaps because it's too short.

You can use Google:

    < http://www.google.com/search?q=doi&sitesearch=microformats.org>

I'm not sure how this helps the person at microformats.org who is trying to find out if DOIs have been considered.

-Ross.

Andy Mabbett

unread,
Mar 23, 2007, 1:29:42 PM3/23/07
to gcs-pc...@googlegroups.com
In message
<23b83f160703222032q19e...@mail.gmail.com>, Ross
Singer <ross....@library.gatech.edu> writes

It provides an alternative search, which works. Use it or not; your
choice.

Edward Summers

unread,
Mar 23, 2007, 4:17:56 PM3/23/07
to gcs-pc...@googlegroups.com

On Mar 23, 2007, at 1:29 PM, Andy Mabbett wrote:
> It provides an alternative search, which works. Use it or not; your
> choice.

Well, now that that's cleared up :-)

Andy, I'm curious did you simply overlook the work done on UID [1]
when you were writing up your thoughts about ISBN...or did you find
it wanting?

//Ed

[1] http://microformats.org/wiki/uid

Andy Mabbett

unread,
Mar 23, 2007, 5:20:14 PM3/23/07
to gcs-pc...@googlegroups.com
In message <C856C1BA-529A-434E...@pobox.com>, Edward
Summers <e...@pobox.com> writes

>On Mar 23, 2007, at 1:29 PM, Andy Mabbett wrote:


>> It provides an alternative search, which works. Use it or not; your
>> choice.
>
>Well, now that that's cleared up :-)

;-)

>I'm curious did you simply overlook the work done on UID [1] when you
>were writing up your thoughts about ISBN...or did you find it wanting?

>[1] http://microformats.org/wiki/uid

A mixture of both. I was vaguely aware of it, but having been reminded,
I also think its probably over-complex for the needs of any publishers;
and that may effect up-take. See:

<http://microformats.org/discuss/mail/microformats-new/2007-March/000062.html>

Daniel Chudnov

unread,
Mar 23, 2007, 5:42:16 PM3/23/07
to gcs-pc...@googlegroups.com
With this reference neatly tying up discussion, I'll encourage those
interested in the citation microformat to continue discussion, etc.,
using microformats.org resources. It's clear that a lot of us here
are interested in it, and it's a good use of this list to update each
other on its status. But beyond that, it is not an appropriate use
of this list to be a continuing, alternate channel, or a backchannel,
for microformats development or discussion. I'm not saying anyone
*is* using it that way, but we're tiptoeing near that on this thread
(and have before, myself included), and I'd just like to draw a clear
line before we get there.

Thanks,

-Dan (list founder and one maintainer of two)

On Mar 23, 2007, at 5:20 PM, Andy Mabbett wrote:
> In message <C856C1BA-529A-434E...@pobox.com>, Edward
> Summers <e...@pobox.com> writes
>

Edward Summers

unread,
Mar 23, 2007, 7:32:43 PM3/23/07
to gcs-pc...@googlegroups.com

On Mar 23, 2007, at 5:42 PM, Daniel Chudnov wrote:

>
> With this reference neatly tying up discussion, I'll encourage those
> interested in the citation microformat to continue discussion, etc.,
> using microformats.org resources. It's clear that a lot of us here
> are interested in it, and it's a good use of this list to update each
> other on its status. But beyond that, it is not an appropriate use
> of this list to be a continuing, alternate channel, or a backchannel,
> for microformats development or discussion. I'm not saying anyone
> *is* using it that way, but we're tiptoeing near that on this thread
> (and have before, myself included), and I'd just like to draw a clear
> line before we get there.

Huh, what exactly is the scope of this discussion list anyhow?

//Ed

Daniel Chudnov

unread,
Mar 25, 2007, 1:04:53 AM3/25/07
to gcs-pc...@googlegroups.com
On Mar 23, 2007, at 7:32 PM, Edward Summers wrote:
>
> Huh, what exactly is the scope of this discussion list anyhow?

It has always been, as it says on the groups page:

"For folks interested in developments and developing the "Gather,
Create, Share" and "Personal Collection Systems" memes, and systems
implementing either or both."

...which seems to be grammatically challenged.

But, active discussion of microformats themselves is best done using
microformats.org resources. This list is not part of that project.

Edward Summers

unread,
Mar 26, 2007, 9:13:17 AM3/26/07
to gcs-pc...@googlegroups.com
On Mar 25, 2007, at 1:04 AM, Daniel Chudnov wrote:
> But, active discussion of microformats themselves is best done using
> microformats.org resources. This list is not part of that project.

Using that logic an argument could be made for not discussing OpenURL
on here since there is a discussion list and community for that
standard.

I was kind of hoping the 'gather, create, share' aspect of this list
would allow us some space (away from said microformats resources) to
reflect on what we're trying to do with citations on the web.

//Ed

Hammond, Tony

unread,
Mar 26, 2007, 9:48:29 AM3/26/07
to gcs-pc...@googlegroups.com
Well I'm kind of confused too because I thought the whole thrust of the
gcs-pcs meme was to be inclusive - not exclusive. As I understood it
gcs-pcs was essentially about glueware for (largely) scholarly
applications. I think uF fits neatly into that space. I agree that
_details_ of uF are best discussed in the other place, but broad
principles surely have some claim to be discussed here.

Tony

********************************************************************************

Ross Singer

unread,
Mar 26, 2007, 9:50:56 AM3/26/07
to gcs-pc...@googlegroups.com
Also, a good rallying cry to this community to try to get our butts in
gear and make hCite work seems definitely in order.

-Ross.

Daniel Chudnov

unread,
Mar 26, 2007, 11:00:13 AM3/26/07
to gcs-pc...@googlegroups.com
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007, Hammond, Tony wrote:

> I agree that _details_ of uF are best discussed in the other place, but
> broad principles surely have some claim to be discussed here.

That is my point. Thank you for saying it more lucidly than I could. :)

Perhaps the negativity in my posts is that there are unique aspects of the
microformats.org community, culture, and process that set it apart, for
better or worse, and I do not want to even have any appearance, or for
this list's members to have any expectation, of this list fitting under
that model or being any part of that process, however informal.

I know that attempting to define this separation isn't comfortable and
that it probably seems harsh to attempt to draw lines in this crazy
cyberspace place where so many of us participate in distinct but
overlapping communities, but I'm willing to take the heat: microformats
are what they are, and this here list is not it.

Ross's suggestion is dead on. Can we move on now?

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages