Re: [office] how do we deal with metadata vocabularies?

[Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 - Hamburg <Michael.Brauer@Sun.COM>]

Hi Bruce,

Bruce D'Arcus wrote:

[...]

> 
> Surely for particular kinds of processing (like bibliographies and 
> citations) one has to have some expectations about the modeling, and so 
> we need to provide this. The question is how?
> 
> I think it's clear we should provide the specification for the citation 
> field in ODF 1.2.
> 
> I think it's also the case that we should not ourselves define the 
> vocabulary for the bibliographic source data. I am working on that in an 
> independent project that involves developers from different projects.
> 
>     <http://bibliontology.com>

I agree that it would be good if we could replace the bibliographic data 
  in ODF with something new based on metadata, and the work you are 
doing is worth to be considered. But unfortunately, there are a few non 
technical constrains that we have to consider. See below.

> 
> So the question is when and how to include or reference this work in 
> ODF? We could just wait until ODF 1.3 once it's more stable, and maybe 
> have an informative web page that points to it, as well as other 
> vocabularies we might suggest (like vard, or Creative Commons, or Dublin 
> Core)?

I think we have to differ between bibliographic data and other vocabularies.

As for bibliographic data, the situation is that they are normatively 
defined in ODF 1.1. For that reason I believe that the expectation is 
that they will be normatively defined in future ODF versions, too, or 
will be replaced by a normative references, which again requires that 
the document we reference is a standard as well. So, if the work you are 
doing at bibliontology.com is already stable, and if you would 
contribute it to the TC, then we may consider to include it into the ODF 
1.2 specification. If the work is not stable yet, then I think we should 
consider to include into ODF 1.3 (which again requires that you 
contribute it to this TC), or to add a normative reference to it (which 
again requires that it has been accepted as standard).

For the other ontologies it may be sufficient if we have an informative 
document that lists them. A web page may be an option. Another option 
would be a meta data guidelines document that is similar to the a11y 
guidelines document.

 >
 > I'm still a little unclear on what the mapping would like in any case;
 > whether it's in the spec or not.

I'm not sure whether a mapping should be included into the spec, but we 
have to make sure that a new representation for the bibliographic field 
or the bibliographic data can represent all that can be represented by 
the current specification, and that there is a mapping.

I could imagine that a good place for the mapping would be the 
informative document mentioned above.


Best regards

Michael
> 
> Any thoughts on any of this?
> 
> Bruce
> 
> 
> 
> 


-- 
Michael Brauer, Technical Architect Software Engineering
StarOffice/OpenOffice.org
Sun Microsystems GmbH             Nagelsweg 55
D-20097 Hamburg, Germany          michael.brauer@sun.com
http://sun.com/staroffice         +49 40 23646 500
http://blogs.sun.com/GullFOSS

Sitz der Gesellschaft: Sun Microsystems GmbH, Sonnenallee 1,
	   D-85551 Kirchheim-Heimstetten
Amtsgericht Muenchen: HRB 161028
Geschaeftsfuehrer: Wolfgang Engels, Dr. Roland Boemer
Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Martin Haering