Difference between revisions of "Talk:Bibliographic/Developer Page/Document XML Format"
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
The given example of bibliographic data is invalid. The primary namespace, the [http://purl.org/net/biblio# Citation Oriented Bibliographic Vocabulary] does not define such terms as author, translator, and original, which are used without a namespace prefix in this sample document. | The given example of bibliographic data is invalid. The primary namespace, the [http://purl.org/net/biblio# Citation Oriented Bibliographic Vocabulary] does not define such terms as author, translator, and original, which are used without a namespace prefix in this sample document. | ||
| − | I am curious as to what | + | I am curious as to what OOo intends to do, given the lack of an established standard RDF bibliographic ontology. While some metadata fits conveniently within the Dublin Core, other metadata (such as volume, issue, etc.) has no place or standardization. The [http://dublincore.org/documents/dc-citation-guidelines/ DCMI Guidelines for Encoding Bibliographic Citation Information in Dublin Core Metadata] would have us re-encode all metadata as an OpenURL ContextObject in order to shoehorn the volume and issue into Dublin Core, which would seem to run contrary to the conceptual framework of RDF. |
Revision as of 15:50, 6 July 2006
biblo-data.xml/biblio-data.xml
The given example of bibliographic data is invalid. The primary namespace, the Citation Oriented Bibliographic Vocabulary does not define such terms as author, translator, and original, which are used without a namespace prefix in this sample document.
I am curious as to what OOo intends to do, given the lack of an established standard RDF bibliographic ontology. While some metadata fits conveniently within the Dublin Core, other metadata (such as volume, issue, etc.) has no place or standardization. The DCMI Guidelines for Encoding Bibliographic Citation Information in Dublin Core Metadata would have us re-encode all metadata as an OpenURL ContextObject in order to shoehorn the volume and issue into Dublin Core, which would seem to run contrary to the conceptual framework of RDF.
