OASIS Open Document Format for Office Applications (OpenDocument) TC

A few weeks ago I asked the question here what we should do about the 
existing bibliographic support in ODF 1.2 (text:bibliography-mark and 
such) in favor of the new metadata field and system.

Patrick suggested deprecating it in the future, with a note in 1.2 that 
this will happen.

The question is *how* to do this?

Traditionally, any new XML added to ODF has a fairly high-bar for 
inclusion. It needs to be fully-specified, and preference is given to 
existing standards; e.g. specs or portions of specs that go through some 
formal standards process.

But the new metadata system I think presents us some challenges, and 
that is: how do we think about suggesting -- either normatively or 
informatively -- what vocabularies should be used for particular use cases?

So here's the thing: we have a standard model in RDF. That is 
standardized. That model gives us reliable extension and flexibility. 
Developers can add anything they want to the RDF, and so long as its 
compliant, it can be read and displayed.

It is, I think, precisely the robust distributed flexibility of RDF that 
means vocabularies are rarely formally standardized in the same way that 
an XML language is. This is a feature, not a bug.

Surely for particular kinds of processing (like bibliographies and 
citations) one has to have some expectations about the modeling, and so 
we need to provide this. The question is how?

I think it's clear we should provide the specification for the citation 
field in ODF 1.2.

I think it's also the case that we should not ourselves define the 
vocabulary for the bibliographic source data. I am working on that in an 
independent project that involves developers from different projects.

	

Hi Bruce,

Bruce D'Arcus wrote:

[...]

> 
> Surely for particular kinds of processing (like bibliographies and 
> citations) one has to have some expectations about the modeling, and so 
> we need to provide this. The question is how?
> 
> I think it's clear we should provide the specification for the citation 
> field in ODF 1.2.
> 
> I think it's also the case that we should not ourselves define the 
> vocabulary for the bibliographic source data. I am working on that in an 
> independent project that involves developers from different projects.
> 
>     

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

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

Hi Bruce,

Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
> 
> 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?

Well, at best it would be what you would like to get added to the 
specification.

But I was not so much talking about the technical aspect of a 
contribution, but the IPR aspect. So, in order to be usable by the TC, 
we must get whatever we may consider to include into the specification 
under the terms and conditions of the OASIS IPR policies

http://www.oasis-open.org/who/intellectualproperty.php

> 
> 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?

We may have to check this with someone from OASIS, but I think so.

Best regards

Michael

-- 
Michael Brauer, Technical Architect Software Engineering
StarOffice/OpenOffice.org
Sun Microsystems GmbH             Nagelsweg 55
D-20097 Hamburg, Germany          michael.brauer@sun.com
http://sun.com/staroffice         +49 40 23646 500
http://blogs.sun.com/GullFOSS

Sitz der Gesellschaft: Sun Microsystems GmbH, Sonnenallee 1,
        D-85551 Kirchheim-Heimstetten
Amtsgericht Muenchen: HRB 161028
Geschaeftsfuehrer: Wolfgang Engels, Dr. Roland Boemer
Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Martin Haering

Michael Brauer wrote:
> Hi Bruce,
> 
> 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?
> 
> Well, at best it would be what you would like to get added to the 
> specification.

Hmm ... any suggestions? We've not really dealt yet with anything but 
fairly simple ontologies, and those haven't yet been integrated into the 
spec.

> But I was not so much talking about the technical aspect of a 
> contribution, but the IPR aspect. 

Yes, I understand. That was part of my question as well.

> So, in order to be usable by the TC, 
> we must get whatever we may consider to include into the specification 
> under the terms and conditions of the OASIS IPR policies
> 
> http://www.oasis-open.org/who/intellectualproperty.php

What does all this mean practically? How do I donate it? How do we deal 
with the fact there are two authors, one a TC and OASIS member, and one not?

>> 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?
> 
> We may have to check this with someone from OASIS, but I think so.

OK; this is an important question.

Bruce

Michael Brauer wrote:
> Hi Bruce,
> 
> 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?
> 
> Well, at best it would be what you would like to get added to the 
> specification.

Hmm ... any suggestions? We've not really dealt yet with anything but 
fairly simple ontologies, and those haven't yet been integrated into the 
spec.

> But I was not so much talking about the technical aspect of a 
> contribution, but the IPR aspect. 

Yes, I understand. That was part of my question as well.

> So, in order to be usable by the TC, 
> we must get whatever we may consider to include into the specification 
> under the terms and conditions of the OASIS IPR policies
> 
> http://www.oasis-open.org/who/intellectualproperty.php

What does all this mean practically? How do I donate it? How do we deal 
with the fact there are two authors, one a TC and OASIS member, and one not?

>> 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?
> 
> We may have to check this with someone from OASIS, but I think so.

OK; this is an important question.

Bruce

Hi Bruce,

Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
> 
> 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?

Well, at best it would be what you would like to get added to the 
specification.

But I was not so much talking about the technical aspect of a 
contribution, but the IPR aspect. So, in order to be usable by the TC, 
we must get whatever we may consider to include into the specification 
under the terms and conditions of the OASIS IPR policies

http://www.oasis-open.org/who/intellectualproperty.php

> 
> 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?

We may have to check this with someone from OASIS, but I think so.

Best regards

Michael

-- 
Michael Brauer, Technical Architect Software Engineering
StarOffice/OpenOffice.org
Sun Microsystems GmbH             Nagelsweg 55
D-20097 Hamburg, Germany          michael.brauer@sun.com
http://sun.com/staroffice         +49 40 23646 500
http://blogs.sun.com/GullFOSS

Sitz der Gesellschaft: Sun Microsystems GmbH, Sonnenallee 1,
        D-85551 Kirchheim-Heimstetten
Amtsgericht Muenchen: HRB 161028
Geschaeftsfuehrer: Wolfgang Engels, Dr. Roland Boemer
Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Martin Haering

Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
>
> 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?
For the ODF spec we used to extract the grammar from the document, you 
might do this with your spec the same way.
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.
>
> 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.

Svante

Svante Schubert wrote:
> Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
>>
>> On Jul 24, 2007, at 12:56 PM, Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 - 
>> Hamburg wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>> 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 am sorry, I might not made it precise enough at this point.
In different words, I suggest the specification of the bibliographic 
ontology will be embedded into the ODF specification to take no risk in 
making normative references to non standard specifications, but would 
make a informative reference, that the bibliographic ontology is based 
on a certain version from your bibliontology.com site.

regards,
Svante

Svante Schubert wrote:
> Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
>>
>> On Jul 24, 2007, at 12:56 PM, Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 - 
>> Hamburg wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>> 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 am sorry, I might not made it precise enough at this point.
In different words, I suggest the specification of the bibliographic 
ontology will be embedded into the ODF specification to take no risk in 
making normative references to non standard specifications, but would 
make a informative reference, that the bibliographic ontology is based 
on a certain version from your bibliontology.com site.

regards,
Svante

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:

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:

Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
>
> 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?
For the ODF spec we used to extract the grammar from the document, you 
might do this with your spec the same way.
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.
>
> 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.

Svante

Hi Bruce,

Bruce D'Arcus wrote:

[...]

> 
> Surely for particular kinds of processing (like bibliographies and 
> citations) one has to have some expectations about the modeling, and so 
> we need to provide this. The question is how?
> 
> I think it's clear we should provide the specification for the citation 
> field in ODF 1.2.
> 
> I think it's also the case that we should not ourselves define the 
> vocabulary for the bibliographic source data. I am working on that in an 
> independent project that involves developers from different projects.
> 
>