W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wiki-dev@w3.org > October to December 2007

W3C (Harvard) References (was Re: Footnotes?)

From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 23:19:36 -0500
To: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Cc: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>, W3C OWL Chairs <team-owl-chairs@w3.org>, public-wiki-dev@w3.org, sysreq@w3.org
Message-ID: <21943.1195532376@ubuhebe>

> On Nov 19, 2007, at 5:24 AM, Bijan Parsia wrote:
> >
> > Sorry to be pesky today, but I'm wondering if it's possible to  
> > enable footnote support:
> > 	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Footnotes
> >
> > (basically <ref>...</ref> and <references/>)
> >
> > I feel a pretty strong desire for them in:
> > 	http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/OWL_Numerics
> > and they could be handy for linking to use cases or email that  
> > support a feature.
> >
> > I can simulate them, of course, but I figured if it were an easy  
> > toggle to flip, might as well ask!

Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com> writes:
> +1 for footnotes. Needs an extension installed: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Cite/Cite.php

There's more to this issue, which is why I haven't done it yet.  I dove
into it some week ago, got tangled in the weeds, and haven't made it
back.  In the process of writing this, though, I guess I've sorted it

The problem with 'Cite' is that it supports only numeric referencing,
not "Harvard referencing".   Wikipedia has some pages about this...


I think Harvard referencing is the preferred approach for W3C...


and is certainly used in the OWL 1.0 specs.  We could decide to switch
to numeric footnotes like 'Cite' offers, but we should not do so lightly.

I think what we want can be done with a pair of templates, which I just
wrote, one for use in the text:


and the other for use in the Reference section:

  |<cite>[http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3987.txt RFC 3987 - Internationalized Resource Identifiers (IRIs)]</cite>. M. Duerst, M. Suignard. IETF, January 2005, http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3987.txt.}}

Perhaps refdef could have various forms for various kind of citations;
that's not so important now.

For an example of these template in use, see

Does that do what we want?    Ideally, it could give errors if the
strings used in {{ref| ... }} didn't line up with those used in refdef,
but ah well (some other tool can check for that).

That said --- perhaps we still want numeric references for
academic-style references in non-spec documents?

     -- Sandro
Received on Tuesday, 20 November 2007 04:20:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:40:57 UTC