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

Svante Schubert wrote:
> Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
>> 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.

Yes, but there's no grammar.

One data point might be Adobe's XMP spec. In that document they include 
  a "schema" section which has a table of properties and such with their 
associated data types.

> 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.

My focus now will be the OWL/RDFS. I don't know if I'll have time to do 
more than that.

>> 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.

If you want to take a look now, the ontology draft is on the wiki:



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