80% is exactly the point, i have started to put together a list of "common" citation types, MODS, BibTeX, Dublin Core, etc. Then trying to map the names between the many different formats, DC.Title->Title, Bibtex.year->DC.Date, etc.
Then when we find all the common propties, we just give them our own names (title, description, etc). Then everyone will know that the Microformat.Title maps to ... in their own format. The cite-format[1] page is the start of the current mappings, feel free to add/edit/delete the terms. >From that we can start to work-out the best way to encode the data. -brian [1] - http://microformats.org/wiki/cite-formats Ed Summers wrote: >On 12/20/05, Tim White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>Brian Suda and I have had some on-again, off-again discussions >>regarding a citation microformat. As this thread points out, solving >>the whole thing in one shot is rather tricky. >> >> > >Well, perhaps rather than solving 100% of the citation problems out >there we could focus on the 80% that openurl key/value pairs cover. It >really doesn't need to be that involved does it? > >//Ed >_______________________________________________ >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
