[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. Bruce