So exactly what is the process by which this gets resolved? Is there one?
On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 10:17 AM, Bruce D'Arcus <bdar...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 5:35 PM, Ian Hickson <i...@hixie.ch> wrote: > > ... > >> I agree that BibTeX is suboptimal. But what should we use instead? > > As I've suggested: > > 1) use Dublin Core. > > This gives you the basic critical properties: literals for titles and > dates, and relations for versions, part/containers, contributors, > subjects. > > You then have a consistent and general way to represent (HTML) > documents and embedded references to other documents, etc. (citation > references). This would cover the most important areas that BibTeX > covers. > > 2) this goes far, but you're then left with a few missing pieces for > citations: > > a. more specific contributors (like editors and translators) > b. identifiers (there's dc:identifier, but no way to explicitly denote > that it's a doi, isbn, issn, etc.) > c. what I call "locators"; volume, issue, pages, etc. > d. types (book, article, patent, etc.) > > If there's some consensus on this basic way forward, we can talk about > details on 2. > > Bruce >
