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?
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?
> For the other ontologies it may be sufficient if we have an
> informative document that lists them. A web page may be an option.
> Another option would be a meta data guidelines document that is
> similar to the a11y guidelines document.
Right, sounds good.
> > 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.
> 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.
Bruce
