OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

office message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

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

On Jul 24, 2007, at 12:56 PM, Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 - 
Hamburg wrote:

> 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.

What is the process by which we would contribute such a thing? Would it 
be the ontology document? The HTML spec document (automatically 
generated from the ontology)? Or both?

Also, I presume this would essentially be like a snapshot of it in 
time? E.g. we are free to evolve it independently if necessary?

> 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.

Right, sounds good.

> > 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.

That won't be a problem; the support in 1.1 is very limited. This will 
be a superset.

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

OK, I'll see if we can get something stable in the next week 
(end-of-July?). If not, we'll hold off until 1.3.


[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]