OK, I spent a bit of time now going through. I think right now the
text -- the actual narrative explanation of "the plan" -- needs to be
more tightly focused, and reorganized a bit. For example, take this
opening paragraph:
The role of the Bibliographic Project (OOoBib) is to support the
OpenOffice.org Writer (wordprocessing) application by enhancing the
bibliographic facility. See our Vision statement for details. Our
current objection to to design and build OOoBib version 0.1, which
will contain the most basic functions for an usable bibligraphic
facility.
A lot of the text reads this way, where the content is fairly generic,
and then there are links to other detailed documents.
I'd change the organization to list "further references" (those links
now inlined in the content) at the end, and include the most important
content in the main body. For example, we need to say really clearly
that we want to achieve the following objectives:
1) Enhance formatting to support:
a. complex features required of commonly used citation styles like APA
and Chicago
b. automatically switching between potentially radically different
citation styles
2) Enhance data model to support a broader range of reference types
3) Add support for connection to remote databases
Much of the first stage stuff is thus related to 1 (though also
includes the other two).
I agree with CPH that we need to include examples of the new citation
coding in this document, and we need to do so in order to demonstrate
the sort of compelling features that it makes possible. One of those
features (related to 1b above) is to be able to seamlessly switch
back-and-forth between author-year styles and footnote-based ones.
This features is a) practically useful, b) unsupported in commercial
alternatives like Endnote, and c) demonstrates what this new citation
coding will enable. It both shows the power of the new coding, and is
also a good test of how well the final solution works.
Anyway, here are two examples. The first is a standard author-year
style, with additional page number details:
<cite:citation xmlns:cite="http://purl.org/NET/xbiblio/cite/1.0";
xmlns:text="urn:oasis:names:tc:opendocument:xmlns:text:1.0">
<cite:citation-source>
<cite:biblioref cite:key="Veer1996a">
<cite:detail cite:units="pages" cite:begin="23" cite:end="24"/>
</cite:biblioref>
</cite:citation-source>
<cite:citation-body>
<text:span text:style-name="Citation">(Veer, 1996:
23-24)</text:span>
</cite:citation-body>
</cite:citation>
The second is a footnoted example.
<cite:citation xmlns:cite="http://purl.org/NET/xbiblio/cite/1.0";
xmlns:text="urn:oasis:names:tc:opendocument:xmlns:text:1.0">
<cite:citation-source>
<cite:biblioref cite:key="Veer1996a"/>
</cite:citation-source>
<cite:citation-body>
<text:note text:id="ftn0" text:note-class="footnote">
<text:note-citation>1</text:note-citation>
<text:note-body>
<text:p text:style-name="Footnote">Peter van der Veer (1996)
Riots and Rituals: The
Construction of Violence and Public Space in Hindu
Nationalism, In Paul Brass Ed., Riots
and Pogroms (New York:NYU Press) 154–76.</text:p>
</text:note-body>
</text:note>
</cite:citation-body>
</cite:citation>
The idea here is that one should be able to switch between the two
without modifying the document source. So the trick is that OOo
handles the cite:citation-body content is if it was any other content.
These "footnoted citations", then, would look the same as any other
footnote, both in terms of display, and also numbering.
There may be a minor change needed depending on where the RDF
discussion goes (namely that cite:key may be too specific, and we may
want a more generic way to link content to metadata items), but it
ought to be otherwise pretty stable.
I also wonder if the namespace ought to be changed to be use the oasis
urn? In any case, minor details.
Bruce
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
