Difference between revisions of "Talk:Bibliographic/Developer Page/Document XML Format"
From Apache OpenOffice Wiki
m (Talk:Bibliographic Document XML Format moved to Talk:Bibliographic/Developer Page/Document XML Format: creating wiki hierarchy) |
|||
| (5 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== biblo-data.xml/biblio-data.xml == | == biblo-data.xml/biblio-data.xml == | ||
| − | The given example of bibliographic data is invalid. The primary namespace, the | + | 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. [[User:Simonster|Simonster]] 17:50, 6 July 2006 (CEST) |
| + | |||
| + | * Simon -- chatted about this over email, but for the record: | ||
| + | ** the example is not really "invalid." Lack of a namespace prefix does not mean the elements aren't namespaced; they are in the default namespace, which corresponds to the biblio vocabulary (though within ODF content is always supposed to be prefixed, so we ought ot change that). | ||
| + | ** while I need to update the RDF schema to include those terms, from an XML standpoint, that doesn't really make them invalid; it's just bad practice from an RDF perspective. | ||
| + | ** On DC, etc., I really am not fond of the OpenURL approach. In general, I've been rather surprised that the RDF world hasn't produced a better bibliographic vocabulary. | ||
| + | ** I think the end result will either be a mix of DC, DCQ and biblio stuff to capture the rest, or all biblio. The precise version will depend on the results of the metadata subcommittee work I am involved in at the ODF TC. One idea I have floated is that ODF include default modules for DC and DCQ. In that case, it'd make sense for us to use them where we can. [[User:bdarcus|bdarcus]] 8 July 2006 | ||
Latest revision as of 21:06, 9 December 2007
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. Simonster 17:50, 6 July 2006 (CEST)
- Simon -- chatted about this over email, but for the record:
- the example is not really "invalid." Lack of a namespace prefix does not mean the elements aren't namespaced; they are in the default namespace, which corresponds to the biblio vocabulary (though within ODF content is always supposed to be prefixed, so we ought ot change that).
- while I need to update the RDF schema to include those terms, from an XML standpoint, that doesn't really make them invalid; it's just bad practice from an RDF perspective.
- On DC, etc., I really am not fond of the OpenURL approach. In general, I've been rather surprised that the RDF world hasn't produced a better bibliographic vocabulary.
- I think the end result will either be a mix of DC, DCQ and biblio stuff to capture the rest, or all biblio. The precise version will depend on the results of the metadata subcommittee work I am involved in at the ODF TC. One idea I have floated is that ODF include default modules for DC and DCQ. In that case, it'd make sense for us to use them where we can. bdarcus 8 July 2006
