Uh-oh. I think we've had the discussion we're about to have
about Jon's initial list of resource types, which makes sense
if his list was drawn from the same source. With all due respect to
Simon and Stu, this list appears to be a random grab-bag, mixing form
of item and nature of content. (Perhaps it is skewed toward the kind
of documents generally produced in TeX?)
Left out, just for example, are the entire category of serial
publications (journal, magazine, newsletter, etc.). It considers
Master's theses and manuals to be types but not dictionaries or
encyclopedias. (I don't know if by "print-media" we mean things
which are printed or only things composed of letters and numbers --
but presumably scores and maps need a home, too.) Bib-Tex is only one
among many, many systems, and hardly primus inter pares -- I don't
think compatibility there should be our goal.
Let's go back to developing/discussing Roy's list, where high-level
answer the fundamental "what?", and subcategories enumerate
the nature of content as necessary.
Robin Wendler ........................ work (617) 495-3724
Office for Information Systems ....... fax (617) 495-0491
Harvard University Library ........... [log in to unmask]
Cambridge, MA, USA 02138 .............
On Thu, 17 Jul 1997, Stu Weibel wrote:
> Simon's suggestion that we adopt Bib-Tex categories for print-media
> categories is a winner in my estimation. So much so, I am moved to
> transcribe them below.
> Any documentalists out there know any strong objections or exceptions?
> >From page 145 of the LaTeX User Guide & Reference Manual
> Leslie Lamport, 1986