-1 for BibTex!
It can be hard to comprehensively parse without inadvertently creating garbage.
Tom
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 1:00 AM, Ross Singer <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 7:02 AM, Jakob Voss <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> The purpose of description can best be served by a format that can easily be
>> displayed for human beeings. You can either use a simple string or a
>> well-known format. A string can be displayed but people will put all
>> different citation formats in there. Right now there are only two
>> established metadata formats that aim at creating a citation:
>>
>> a) BibTeX
>> b) The input format of the Citation Style Language (CSL)
>>
> This isn't entirely true. There's RIS
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIS_%28file_format%29) and BIBO
> (http://bibliontology.com/) is starting to become quite common in the
> linked data sphere.
>
> There's also BibJSON (http://www.bibkn.org/bibjson/index.html) which
> I've had a browser tab open for months with the intention of actually
> looking at and actually seems quite well suited for how Twitter will
> store annotations. My opinion of it all along, however, has been very
> similar to yours -- why another citation format and why bind it so
> closely to a particular serialization?
>
> -Ross.
>
|
