[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [office-metadata] Re: [office] how do we deal with metadatavocabularies?
Bruce D'Arcus wrote: > > 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? For the ODF spec we used to extract the grammar from the document, you might do this with your spec the same way. As the OOo XHTML export get improved, you might use ODF and export it later to XHTML and extract the ontology by the same XSLT we use for the metadata spec. Using ODF would help us to embrace the information in our ODF 1.2 spec, as referencing alone a non-standard as bibliontology.com might become problematic. > > 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? The snapshot should be a version, that the ODF spec could refer to. Aside of this stable version, your site could host the ongoing work for further versions. > [...] > >> > 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. Excellent! > >> 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. Looking forward to review it. Svante