Thanks guys, that discussion is useful.
I've been reading a little more about XMP and I now realize that it has two parts. The first is a standard way for writing in xml data as part of a PDF, the second is a schema and namespace for their own metadata fields.
So simply having rdf in there doesn't help the Adobe tools (and by extension other tools as they start to read this stuff instead of the Document Information Dictionary). I had this fantasy that their tools simply tool RDF, a namespace (or schema, and generated a forms display of it. No, AFAICS, their tools simply work with their own schema and namespaces.
So for my immediate needs I'm wondering whether worrying about having the citation data in the files as RDF is really important. I can just stick MODS XML in. If someone else cares about having tools that read XMP out of that then a transform should be relatively easy (the XMP tools display only basic stuff compared with what MODS can describe.)
For others (like Bibdesk) there's no point in getting into XMP's namespace. MODS-XML (with Bruce's additions for annotations) is what we want anyway.
I'll need to check whether having non-RDF and non-XMP namespace stuff in the XMP section of a pdf causes the Adobe tools to choke or whether they (hopefully) silently ignore it.
Thanks, James
ps. Stefan, we met once or twice at ApacheCon. I was that annoying interviewer with the safari hat :)
On Feb 14, 2005, at 10:29 AM, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
Bruce D'Arcus wrote:On Feb 13, 2005, at 11:53 PM, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:Then all you need is somebody that converts the MODS schema into an RDF ontology then convince the library of congress to publish it and Adobe to consider it as their standard ontology for XPM.:-)
Piece of cake.
As I said before, I think PRISM is pretty decent, and uses a fair bit of DC. For James' purpose, that might be enough? He could include both the DC data, and the enhanced data needed for citation rendering. Right?
Yeah, PRISM looks decent... but even with just a first pass, the people who wrote it had very little clue on how RDF should work in real life they confused DC elements with DC terms and use the same namespace for that, oh man.
But their approach is sane: reuse the standards you can and extend to provide the things you care about.
So, yeah, that is a better choice than write your own ontology or wait a decade until the library of congress gets the importance of RDF.
Hope this helps.
-- Stefano Mazzocchi Research Scientist Digital Libraries Research Group Massachusetts Institute of Technology location: E25-131C 77 Massachusetts Ave telephone: +1 (617) 253-1096 Cambridge, MA 02139-4307 email: stefanom at mit . edu -------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--James US Cell: +1 315 395 4056 Full Contact Details on VCard: http://freelancepropaganda.com/jameshowison.vcf
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
