On Wed, Apr 05, 2006 at 12:07:15PM -0400, Bruce D'Arcus wrote: > > On Apr 5, 2006, at 11:50 AM, Matt Price wrote: > > >should it be a little more extensive here? so for instnace: I am > >extremely disorganized, and in the absence of a satisfactory > >bibliogrpahic solution have dealt with various bibs in the last few > >years. On one paper I use one bib, for another project I may have a > >wholly different one. So shouldthe uri be: > > > > person:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:SOME_HASH_HERE:smith99 > > I'm not really sure exactly what it should be, but yeah, it'd take some > thought. > > >>I should also add that using uris for association is likely what will > >>be the outcome of the metadata work at the ODF TC. It provides a > >>standard and general mechanism to link content and metadata. > >> > >>How's that? > > > >do you guys have some docs on this emerging standard? > > It's not emerging; it's already widely used: > > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Resource_Identifier> > > See how examples like RDF and XLink use uris for linking. One example > of the former relevant to this discussion: > > <http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2004/06/02/dijalog.html>
sorry, I didn't mean URI's, I meant "the metadata work atthe ODF TC". standard was perhapsthe wrong word. Matt > > Bruce > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -------------------------- .''`. Matt Price : :' : Debian User `. `'` & hemi-geek `- -------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
