| I can't speak for what Tim Gambell's requirements or intentions are, but for my requirements, as long as the citation format includes the minimum common properties in the examples, the citation format would be fine. at the moment this seems to be: Photo (more accurately referred to as 'image', but photo is the convention from hcard) Title Author (artist) Year Dimensions Media Copyright other properties include: Owner/Collection "Gift Of" Genre (luckily in the world of art, the list of genres is pretty much nailed down and agreed on) And museums use a citation code that I don't quite understand the purpose or format of, but here's an example from the National Gallery of victoria: 2004.192 One site includes the classification of a peice as a photo, sculpture, or painting. There's plenty of borderline cases for all 3 of those so I'm not entirely convinced of the worth of such a classification system. Tim Gambell lists a few exhaustive formats designed for the purpose of archiving information about art. Depending on the actual problem this microformat is intending to solve, Such completeness is probably not necessary. On Mar 27, 2006, at 8:34 AM, Ryan Cannon wrote:
|
_______________________________________________ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
