2009/6/25 Joseph Reagle <reagle(a)mit.edu>du>:
Option 2 is more readable, but requires a redirection
by the reader if they
want full bibliographic detail, and adds pages (and weight and cost) to a
book. Another option is to use an adaptation of Option 1: standard
long-then-short Chicago without URLs, which are provided online. This make
a practical sort of sense (and this is what Anderson *says* he was planning
to do), but is non-standard and I'm not sure how it would be received.
This reminds me of a thought I've been having for a while. *We* can
pro-actively take steps to make citation easier for our users, at
least in theory; we can provide more elegant URLs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view&a…
can be rendered as
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=6042007
Can we make that even more succinct? Well, we could take a leaf from
the DOI playbook, and set up something like:
http://[site]/wp:en/6042007
At first glance, this doesn't seem to actually add very much - it's
just a shorter URL. But we could then use it as a platform to help our
reusers...
a) if that revision is deleted, we could generate a page saying so and
identifying the next live revision *on that page*.
b) if one day we get a marvellous system for identifying authors, this
would be an obvious place to display the generated list of them for a
given revision.
I'd be curious as to any other applications people can think of.
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk