ODF requirements

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
4 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

ODF requirements

Bruce D'Arcus
FYI, the ODF metadata SC met today to discuss how we'll move forward  
with the requirements document. We're going to start by discussing in  
detail two of what we think are the most difficult and representative  
use cases we need to solve. The first of these will be bibliographies  
and citations.

I am therefore going to post my tentative thoughts here in case  
anyone has any comments.


ODF Requirements
================

- bibliographic source metadata must (optionally) be stored as a  
single file apart from the content file, in the file wrapper, for  
easy extraction, processing, etc.

- bibliographic resources must be identified with uris, which are  
used to link citation with source

- data file must be registered through the manifest as a  
bibliographic data source

- metadata must be extensible so that it can evolve to meet changing  
community needs independent of ODF, and different potential database  
applications can transport their own specific extension data without  
need for any specific support from ODF

- data model needs to account for the relational character of  
bibliographic metadata, such that authors, publishers, and so forth  
can be treated as full resources, with their own set of properties

- must be able to type resource descriptions (book, article, etc.)

- given that source records are likely to be created by third-party  
applications, the format should be clear and easy to read and write  
with standard XML tools


Dependencies
============

The already approved citation field scheduled for ODF 1.2 might be  
slightly changed to fit better with this more general approach. This  
has no effect on backward compatibility, of course.


Application Requirements
========================

- optional namespaced content must be preserved

- at minimum, must support display of formatted citation field  
content; more advanced support would include editing the citation  
field. Processing of formatted citation fields and bibliographies and  
editing of source data would be a perfect third-party opportunity.

Bruce

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ODF requirements

ptsefton
I would like to see consideration of interoperability with the Microsoft
Office Open XML formats (if a proposed feature will compromise interop I'd
prefer it left out). It would also be worth looking at the MS Word to ODF
converter project which should be retro-fittable into older versions of
Word.

The default word processer is still MS Word, and compromising
interoperability is not an option for the projects I'm working on. So if
some of the fields under discussion here can be converted in and out of
generic data fields in Microsoft's formats then that would be great (the new
citation format in Word 2007 is not a option because it is not compatible
with earlier versions of Word, or available on OS X).

So I guess my question here is "is there an existing generic data field for
which MS Word interop is already sorted out that could be extended for
citation and bibliography support?"

My reading of this is that storing source data in the ODF document is
optional. If so that's good.


On 7/28/06, Bruce D'Arcus <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> FYI, the ODF metadata SC met today to discuss how we'll move forward
> with the requirements document. We're going to start by discussing in
> detail two of what we think are the most difficult and representative
> use cases we need to solve. The first of these will be bibliographies
> and citations.
>
> I am therefore going to post my tentative thoughts here in case
> anyone has any comments.
>
>
> ODF Requirements
> ================
>
> - bibliographic source metadata must (optionally) be stored as a
> single file apart from the content file, in the file wrapper, for
> easy extraction, processing, etc.
>
> - bibliographic resources must be identified with uris, which are
> used to link citation with source
>
> - data file must be registered through the manifest as a
> bibliographic data source
>
> - metadata must be extensible so that it can evolve to meet changing
> community needs independent of ODF, and different potential database
> applications can transport their own specific extension data without
> need for any specific support from ODF
>
> - data model needs to account for the relational character of
> bibliographic metadata, such that authors, publishers, and so forth
> can be treated as full resources, with their own set of properties
>
> - must be able to type resource descriptions (book, article, etc.)
>
> - given that source records are likely to be created by third-party
> applications, the format should be clear and easy to read and write
> with standard XML tools
>
>
> Dependencies
> ============
>
> The already approved citation field scheduled for ODF 1.2 might be
> slightly changed to fit better with this more general approach. This
> has no effect on backward compatibility, of course.
>
>
> Application Requirements
> ========================
>
> - optional namespaced content must be preserved
>
> - at minimum, must support display of formatted citation field
> content; more advanced support would include editing the citation
> field. Processing of formatted citation fields and bibliographies and
> editing of source data would be a perfect third-party opportunity.
>
> Bruce
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>


--
Peter (pt) Sefton
Toowoomba 4350
Queensland, Australia
Phone: +61 4 1032 6955
Web: http://ptsefton.com
Email: [hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ODF requirements

Bruce D'Arcus

On Jul 27, 2006, at 8:04 PM, pt wrote:

> I would like to see consideration of interoperability with the
> Microsoft
> Office Open XML formats (if a proposed feature will compromise interop
> I'd
> prefer it left out). It would also be worth looking at the MS Word to
> ODF
> converter project which should be retro-fittable into older versions of
> Word.

Generally speaking, having a requirement for interoperability with Word
isn't likely to go very far with the TC. It's not part of the TC's
charter to prioritize interop with MS. The focus is really on the best
technical solutions that will enhance interoperability going forward
(particularly within the ODF universe, and WRT to other open
standards).

That said, when I talk to engineers about this stuff, I do tell them
how MS deals with it.

[...]

> So I guess my question here is "is there an existing generic data
> field for
> which MS Word interop is already sorted out that could be extended for
> citation and bibliography support?"

I think you ought to ask Microsoft and/or Apple about this. I'm almost
certain older versions of the file format have fields support that
would work (indeed, this is how Endnote interacts with Word, and my
understanding is that the Word 2007 support is building on old field
structures), but it's not my area of expertise.

I will ping someone else I know that might have an idea though.

> My reading of this is that storing source data in the ODF document is
> optional. If so that's good.

Correct. I was just talking about this today and saying that storing
the source would be required if one wanted to guarantee resolution of
the source data, but that it would not be strictly required.

One of the SC members was objecting to my argument that we need to
insist that all metadata resources be identified using uris, and I was
explaining how that could work.

Bruce

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ODF requirements

Bruce D'Arcus
In reply to this post by ptsefton
Peter, comment from one of the MS people on Brian Jones' blog:

> Since Open XML is the default format for Office 2007, I don't think
> that MS has changed a lot in the binary format and adapted the XML
> format as an afterthought. So the reference for binary compatibility
> would be Office 2003. Any problem that Office 2003 has with reading
> binary Word 98 files will probably also be there when converting Word
> 98 files to Open XML.
> But that's more or less a problem of the past. These quirks in
> backwards compatibility have already had their effects, and it's just
> about as useful to complain about those as it is to complain about any
> other problem in the old binary formats. I mean, there's a reason even
> MS want's to get rid of them.

It sounds like based on that compatibility between Office 2003/2004 and
2007 will be very good. My guess is the field stuff is probably
significantly older than that though.

I'd push on them to have full-fidelity round-trip conversion of OXML
with previous versions via their planned plug-in.

Bruce

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]