 |
 |
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 6:08 AM, Tim Spalding <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > I'm inclined to start adding it to the "I'm talking about" and "I'm > adding" links on LibraryThing. I imagine it could be easily added to > many library applications too—anywhere there is or could be a "share > this on Twitter" link, including OPACs, citation managers, library > event feeds, etc. You might want to add it now, but I don't think annotations are available yet in Twitter. If you haven't seen it already Marcel Molina of Twitter outlined how annotations might work in a post he made to the twitter-api discussion list [1]. > So the question is the format. Only a maniac would suggest MARC. For > size and other reasons, even MODS is too much. But perhaps we can > borrow the barest of field names from MODS, COinS, or from the most > commonly used bibliographic format, Amazon XML. > > Thoughts? It sounds like a good idea to have a common pattern. I could definitely see a use case for wanting to aggregate conversations around books and such. //Ed