[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: <http://wiki.bibliontology.com/index.php/Ontology_Working_Draft> Bruce