[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: how do we deal with metadata vocabularies?
A few weeks ago I asked the question here what we should do about the existing bibliographic support in ODF 1.2 (text:bibliography-mark and such) in favor of the new metadata field and system. Patrick suggested deprecating it in the future, with a note in 1.2 that this will happen. The question is *how* to do this? Traditionally, any new XML added to ODF has a fairly high-bar for inclusion. It needs to be fully-specified, and preference is given to existing standards; e.g. specs or portions of specs that go through some formal standards process. But the new metadata system I think presents us some challenges, and that is: how do we think about suggesting -- either normatively or informatively -- what vocabularies should be used for particular use cases? So here's the thing: we have a standard model in RDF. That is standardized. That model gives us reliable extension and flexibility. Developers can add anything they want to the RDF, and so long as its compliant, it can be read and displayed. It is, I think, precisely the robust distributed flexibility of RDF that means vocabularies are rarely formally standardized in the same way that an XML language is. This is a feature, not a bug. 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> 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'm still a little unclear on what the mapping would like in any case; whether it's in the spec or not. Any thoughts on any of this? Bruce