Brian, Perhaps a Retrieved Date or Access Date would be appropriate for citing online resources.
For example at http://www.crlt.umich.edu/publinks/facment_biblio.html you see citations like this: Chief Academic Officers of the Big 12 Universities (2000). Big 12 Faculty Fellowship Program. Retrieved December 20, 2000 from the World Wide Wed: http://www.k-state.edu/provost/academic/big12/big12guide.htm. And in the APA style guide at http://www.apastyle.org/elecsource.html#78 they are fairly specific about the use of Retrieved Date as distinct from the Publication/Copyright Date: Chou, L., McClintock, R., Moretti, F., Nix, D. H. (1993). Technology and education: New wine in new bottles: Choosing pasts and imagining educational futures. Retrieved August 24, 2000, from Columbia University, Institute for Learning Technologies Web site: http://www.ilt.columbia.edu/publications/papers/newwine1.html Fredrickson, B. L. (2000, March 7). Cultivating positive emotions to optimize health and well-being. Prevention & Treatment, 3, Article 0001a. Retrieved November 20, 2000, from http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume3/pre0030001a.html Note that the only online citation on the wiki is listed in the dtpublished field. That wouldn't work for the above citations. I added the first example to the wiki. However, the APA example is fictitious, but it is in a credible reference. Should that be added or is that not "in the wild"? -j -- Joe Andrieu [EMAIL PROTECTED] +1 (805) 705-8651 > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:microformats- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian Suda > Sent: Saturday, April 29, 2006 11:58 AM > To: Microformats Discuss > Subject: [uf-discuss] Citation Straw Proposal II > > I have spent some time reviewing the examples and the formats on the > wiki. Here is the list of the implied schemas. These are the common > fields amongst the examples. I then looked at the cross over between > the real-world examples and the formats and have created a straw > proposal from that. At the moment it is pretty strict, i only included > VERY common properties - it is easier to make additions than > subtractions - so if there is a property that is NOT in the straw > proposal please speak-up. > > implied schema (examples) > + publisher > + language > + description > + title > + creator > + volume > + issue > + page > + edition > + identifier > + tags > + format > + date published > + copyright > - audience > > implied schema (formats) > + publisher > + language > + description > + title > + creator > + volume > + pages > + edition > + issue > + identifier > + tags > + format > + date published > + date copyrighted > - subtitle > - image > - excerpt > - index terms > - series title > - publication > - journal > - part (1 of X) > > UNION of the two schemas > + (PLUS) means common properties > - (MINUS) means unique to the schema > > Brian's Straw format > <ul class="bibliography"> > <li class="citation" xml:lang="en-gb"> > > <!-- publisher data as hCard--> > <div class="publisher vcard"> > <span class="fn org">ABC Publishing Co.</span> > <span class="country-name">United Kingdom</span> > ... > </div> > > <!-- author(s) data as hCard --> > <div class="creator vcard"> > <span class="fn">John Doe</span> > ... > </div> > > <!-- location data --> > <span class="title">Foobar!</span> > <span class="description">World Class Book about foobar</span> > <span class="volume">1</span> > <span class="issue">1</span> > <span class="edition">1</span> > <span class="pages">1-10</span> > <span class="format">article</span> > > <!-- differed to the UID debate --> > <span class="identifier">12345678</span> > > <!-- keywords --> > <span class="keyword">foo</span> > <span class="keyword">bar</span> > > <!-- date properties --> > Published <abbr class="dtpublished" title="20060101">January > 1st 1006</abbr> > Copyright <abbr class="copyright" title="20060101">2006</abbr> > </li> > ... > </ul> > > <p class="citation">Have you read <span class="title"><abbr > title="book" class="format">Foo Bar</abbr></span>? > It was written by <span class="author vcard"><span class="fn">John > Doe</span></span>. > It only came out a <abbr class="dtpublished" title="20060101">few > months ago</abbr></p> > > FIELDS THAT MIGHT BE IMPORTANT, BUT WERE NOT IN BOTH IMPLIED SCHEMAS > - URL (this is probably do to several examples of older citation > formats not having URLs, is this important or can identifier handle > this property?) > - IMAGE (not sure what this would be an image of, but HTML has <img> > element, so it could be of use? Does it help to cite something?) > > - AUTHOR, EDITOR, TRANSLATOR, etc. At the moment these are all lumped > into 'creator' which will need to be expanded as appropriate. Probably > (author | editor ) > - ABSTRACT, NOTES, EXCEPT, etc. At the moment these are lumped into > 'description' > > - Difference between COPYRIGHT and LICENSE, currently citation > copyright is a date-time, license would be the TYPE. License is NOT > accounted for. > > - IsPartOf is another property that has been discussed which is not > represented. > > - Other properties like 'audience' are in some formats (DC) but were > not common enough to be considered in the format schema. > > Overall this straw format is on the minimal side, so lets review this > and see what needs to be addressed and how to do so. > > i have added the straw proposal to the wiki[1], so feel free to make > changes/suggestions there. > > -brian > > [1] - http://microformats.org/wiki/citation- > brainstorming#Brian.27s_Straw_format > > -- > brian suda > http://suda.co.uk > _______________________________________________ > 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