Hi Julian,
> I've been successfully encoding abstracts using
>
> <link rel="schema.DC" href="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"/>
> <meta name="DC.Description.Abstract" content="...."/>
>
> For instance, Zotero (<http://www.zotero.org/>) picks it up.
>
> I recently noticed that Google is really bad in extracting
> page summaries, but can be helped with...:
>
> <meta name="description" content="...."/>
>
> But that means repeating the text in a second meta tag.
> Furthermore, the text is already present in the document
> anyway, like that:
>
> <h1 id="abstract">Abstract</h1>
> <p>...</p>
>
> So would it ok to express the abstract like that instead...:
>
> <link rel="schema.DC" href="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"/>
> <link rel="DC.Description.Abstract" href="#abstract"/>
>
> DC-HTML doesn't seem to include an example for it, but I
> think it should be ok...
Using the conventions of the current DC-HTML profile, to generate a URI of http://purl.org/dc/terms/abstract you'd need
<link rel="schema.DC" href="http://purl.org/dc/terms/"/>
<link rel="DC.abstract" href="#abstract"/>
Re the fragment id, I don't see any reason it shouldn't work in principle.
The only question that occurred to me (and it is just a question - I'm by no means sure about this) was whether it would be more appropriate to use something like
<div id="#abstract">
<h1>Abstract</h1>
<p>...</p>
</div>
on the basis that the abstract is more than just the h1 element?
I guess this is "what does a fragment id in HTML identify?" territory, which I think is determined by media type
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2854.txt (for media type text/html)
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3236.txt (for media type application/xml+xhtml)
Pete
Eduserv has moved office! For details visit www.eduserv.org.uk/contacts
|