Re: [dev-biblio] Re: [users-biblio] JabRef - OpenOffice integration

2007-12-08 Thread David Wilson
On Sun, 9 Dec 2007, Leonard Mada wrote:

 I strongly suggest moving this page to a new location, something like:

 http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Bibliographic_Project/Plugins/Zote
ro instead of creating such orphaned pages.

Leonard,

Thanks for the the suggestion. When I started the wiki pages I just 
copied 
what most other people were doing - which was a flat file structure with any 
hierarchy built using category links.

I can see there advantages in moving to a hierarchical directory organisation. 
Are there any objections to my restructuring the wiki pages in this way ?


regards
David

On Sun, 9 Dec 2007, Leonard Mada wrote:

 All bibliographic wiki-pages should be ultimately moved below the
 top-level page 'Bibliographic_Project'.

 I hope nobody gets annoyed by this quibbling about the wiki-structure.
 As you know, I am rather focused on the hierarchical organisation of
 data  (http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Bib-Keywords), and this
 makes sense. It becomes much easier to navigate such sites, see e.g.
 http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Writer/ToDo/Layout/Multi_Page_Layo
ut where one easily can navigate back to the top-level Writer page.
 [http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Writer]

 I hope therefore, that all project leads will enforce this style and
 improve existing wikis by moving orphaned pages below the top-level
 project's wiki-page.

 Sincerely,

 Leonard

  regards
 
  David

 -
 To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



-- 
---
David N. Wilson
Co-Project Lead for the Bibliographic 
OpenOffice.org Project
http://bibliographic.openoffice.org

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [dev-biblio] Re: [users-biblio] JabRef - OpenOffice integration

2007-12-07 Thread David Wilson
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007, Bruce D'Arcus wrote:


 So I'd like to see if we can work with developers from Zotero, JabRef,
 etc. to enhance that baseline support. If out that some other
 developer start to build the integrated tool we originally envisioned,
 that's great. But I don't think we can depend on that panning out. And
 in any case, as I say, it's not an either/or choice; just a question
 of immediate priorities.

 Bruce

As a start, I have set up a wiki page to assist in the managing of Zotero 
plugin issues. There is not much there yet and I invite interested people to 
add to it.

http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Zotero_Plugin


regards

David
-- 
---
David N. Wilson
Co-Project Lead for the Bibliographic 
OpenOffice.org Project
http://bibliographic.openoffice.org

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [dev-biblio] Re: [users-biblio] JabRef - OpenOffice integration

2007-12-05 Thread David Wilson
I largely different with Bruce, and encourage the development of Bibliographic 
applications that can effectively interact with OpenOffice. I differ from 
Bruce in not yet being fully convinced that we should abandon the idea of 
building a native integrated bibliographic facility in to OpenOffice. 

However, whilst some Bibliographic enhancements ARE scheduled for OpenOffice 
version 3.  ( http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Features ). There is 
no date set for this release, although I would hazard a guess for mid to late 
2008. Also there is as yet no decision as to the Bibliographic features that 
would be included in that release. We know that the Writer development team 
has rather limited development resources and as a OOo Project.  Thus third 
solution for a usable bibliographic facility now or in the near future.

Currently there are complexities involved with Zotero and other 3rd party 
bibliographic apps in sharing documents and the related bibliographic data, 
which would be greatly reduced with an integrated bibliographic facility.  
Maybe applications like Zotero will solve these problems (they are being 
discussed on the Zotero development wiki) and if they can solve them then my 
desire for an integrated bibliographic application may well be weakened. 

Regarding deprecate the existing citation and bib support ASAP, I have never 
considered it usable, and would be happy to see it gone.

A list member recently pointed out to me that my first enhancement request 
that started this project #5038, was filed 1999 days ago by yours truly . 
and that it makes me wonder if we'll see any working implementation before I 
retire (in about 15 years). I have not yet given up hope.

I urge all the list members to to contact any skilled developers that they 
know who may be interesting in working on this project. A couple of skilled 
and committed programmers could really accelerate this project. Otherwise we 
completely are at the mercy of the priorities and limitations of the SUN 
Writer development team.


regards

david

On Wed, 5 Dec 2007, Bruce D'Arcus wrote:

 This brings up something I've been thinking about for awhile. I'm not
 sure if David or others agree with me on this, but here's my thinking:

 The OOo bibliographic project started with the idea to replace the
 integrated bibliographic component with something much better, but
 still developed within the framework of OOo.

 For a variety of reasons, I think this is the wrong way to go. One of
 those reasons is that the Zotero project has pretty much done what I'd
 hope to achieve with OOoBib:

 1) a rich data model and nice UI
 2) good import/export
 3) use of the CSL citation styling language
 4) integration iwith Word and OOo

 ... and so, finally a good, cross-platform application that is
 suitable for a wide range of fields, including the social sciences and
 humanities (where traditional tools often fail). I'm currently using
 it for an article manuscript.

 I'd like to see this project, then, work on enhancing the integration
 of tools like Zotero and JabRef with OOo. I'd encourage people, for
 example, to get their hands dirty with testing, with trying to offer
 support on places like the Zotero forums, and where possible to spend
 time figuring out the code so that we can ensure excellent support
 long-term, enhancements, and so forth.

 I'd ideally like to use this work to converge on an enhanced citation
 API in OOo that allows for standardized integration (and encoding in
 ODF 1.2)

 I'd also like to see other projects pick up CSL, but that's a somewhat
 separate issue.

 So I'm basically suggesting a shift in focus designed to get stuff
 working NOW, and enhance as we go.

 Thoughts?

 Bruce

 PS - Oh, and I think we should urge Sun deprecate the existing
 citation and bib support ASAP.

 -
 To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



-- 
---
David N. Wilson
Co-Project Lead for the Bibliographic 
OpenOffice.org Project
http://bibliographic.openoffice.org

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [dev-biblio] Some Considerations for Bibliographic Management

2007-06-15 Thread David Wilson
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 TWiMC,

 Perhaps some of the issues of the following Zotero thread may also be
 pertinent to the OOo Bib. project (specifically: permitting for the
 selection of and retention of disparate fonts and font sizes within
 citations as well as citation prefixes and suffixes):

 http://forums.zotero.org/discussion/907/word-pluginzotero-feature-request-f
l exible-commentary-in-footnotes-via-flexible-fonts/

 Respectfully submitted,

 clip.


Clip,

As I understand them, the current proposals for the OOo Bib Project 
would 
allow for the selection of and retention of disparate fonts and font sizes 
within citation and citation prefixes and suffixes.  Each of the citation 
elements author name, title etc, would be in formatted text field - that is a 
field that would allow any formatting that a text document could have, 
including embedded formulas, graphics etc. and would include font selection 
down to the character level. 

A difficulty arises when you want to export this highly formatted 
bibliographic data or try to integrate with a third-party package like 
Zotero. To deal with the complex text formatting Zotero would have support 
most of OOo Writer's text formatting functions itself ! which is clearly not 
feasible. It could called on OOo services to display and edit the citations, 
(and a similar process for MS Word) but then you have the all the problems 
with conversion of WP formats and exporting or using your bibliographic 
database to a machine with no compatible WP. Zotero would cease being a 
standalone package. If Zotero wanted to implement some font and character 
formatting it could pass this text to OOo Writer or  MS Word in HTML or RTF 
formats. 

A partial solution to the Zotero OOo Writer integration might be that when the 
user inserts a Zotero sourced citation (in a simple text string format) the 
user can then do the complex font modifications to the text in Writer, and we 
try and make the database update function 'intelligent' enough that in 
updating it attempts to maintain the user font/character formatting. Which 
could work if the database changes were small spelling corrections, but 
changing the word order and spelling of your Greek and Aramaic words might 
defeat such an update system and the user would have to do manual 
corrections.


regards David

-- 
---
David N. Wilson
Co-Project Lead for the Bibliographic 
OpenOffice.org Project
http://bibliographic.openoffice.org

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [dev-biblio] feedback needed on citation formatting

2007-03-20 Thread David Wilson
On Wednesday 21 March 2007 7:39 am, Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
 I'm wondering about a simpler approach still. I am thinking of
 properties like just citation, shortCitation and bibliographicEntry. In
 that scheme, if we have a citation like (Doe, 1999, 2000; see also
 Smith, 1993):

   - ref 1 and 3 are the default citation string
   - ref 2 is the short form
   - ref 3 would also be a see also type, and so grouped and prefixed
 in standard ways that could be overridden

 So the RDF in package would look like:

 b:Book rdf:about=urn:isbn:34982376
b:citationDoe, 1999/b:citation
b:shortCitaton1999/b:shortCitaiton
...
 /b:Book

 Any thoughts? Could things be as simple as I am thinking?

It may be. Footnote citations are also in two forms, the long form for
 Initial Citations, the short form for Subsequent Citations so the suggested
 format seems to work for that case.

A couple of questions come to mind-

1. Locator formatting (page numbers etc). If CiteProc is handling the locator
formatting I would guess that intend that the RDF in package would look like:

 b:Book rdf:about=urn:isbn:34982376:123-128#An entry for each
 ref/location b:citationDoe, 1999:123-128/b:citation
b:shortCitaton1999:123-128/b:shortCitaiton
...
 /b:Book

If not and the WP interface handles this then the WP interface needs to deal
with the different locator types formats that are style dependent. I.E. p,
page, pp, pages, 123-128, or 123-8 etc.

2. With a basic two sting input field suppression like Suppress Author, Date
etc. would have be based on a set of assumptions like the Author text string
consists of the characters to the first numeric character or the end of the
input,  Dates are the first 4 numeric digits following a comma ? This could
get complex as we need to cope with all possible styles, multiple authors and
different data formats.

It was  issues like these that led me to think that Bibliography Service API
would need to be supplied with-

b:Book rdf:about=urn:isbn:34982376:123-128 #An entry for each
 ref/location b:citationDoe, 1999:123-128/b:citation  #Also
 Initial Citation b:shortCitaton1999:123-128/b:shortCitaiton # Also
 Subsequent Citation b:CitationLocation:123-128/b:CitationLocation
b:CitationAuthorNameDoe/b:CitationAuthorName
b:CitationDate1999/b:CitationDate
   b:IbidTextIbid./b:IbidText
...
 /b:Book
Thus suppressing date or author, or locator becomes a simple string matching
action. And Ibid. with location is IbidText + CitationLocation, as in 'Ibid.,
123-128'

Shifting locator formatting to the WP interface simplifies the CiteProc
requirements to

b:Book rdf:about=urn:isbn:34982376
b:citationDoe, 1999/b:citation  #Also Initial Citation
b:shortCitaton1999/b:shortCitaiton # Also Subsequent Citation
b:CitationAuthorNameDoe/b:CitationAuthorName
b:CitationDate1999/b:CitationDate
   b:IbidTextIbid./b:IbidText
...
 /b:Book

at the cost of building a mini CiteProc for locator formatting into the WP
interface or having a separate requestLocatorFormatting service for CiteProc
to perform whenever a new or change location is added: I think the latter may
be the best option.

David
--
---
David N. Wilson
Co-Project Lead for the Bibliographic
OpenOffice.org Project
http://bibliographic.openoffice.org

---

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [dev-biblio] feedback needed on citation formatting

2007-03-20 Thread David Wilson
On Wednesday 21 March 2007 11:23 am, Bruce D'Arcus wrote:


 I am leaning towards not supporting traditional flags of this sort,
 with the idea that they're more trouble than they're worth, for both
 author and programmer.
I am not sure what you mean precisely. Do you mean 'by not supporting 
traditional flags of this sort' the flags and the functions of 'Suppress 
Author Name' and 'Suppress Date' in the citation.

Or do you mean having the functions of 'Suppress Author Name' and 'Suppress 
Date' but without the use of flags in calling the Citeproc formatting 
services ?

David
-- 
---
David N. Wilson
Co-Project Lead for the Bibliographic 
OpenOffice.org Project
http://bibliographic.openoffice.org

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



[dev-biblio] Re: zotero and OOo

2007-02-13 Thread David Wilson
On Wed, 14 Feb 2007, Bruce D'Arcus wrote:

 My colleague David Wilson has posted the requirements
 he sees (though I've had time to look at them in depth), and I've
 noted that ZOOM may well provide a ready made API complete with
 freely available code.

I have posted the basic requirement (as I have able to conceive them so far) 
for two options. Option 1 is the way most 3rd party bibliographic 
applications work with word processors. I think this is how Zotero works with 
MS Word (I do not have MS Word to test it). 

Option 2 would provide a unified User Interface which could support plug-in 
bibliographic engines. It requires a lot more software building work on the 
WP side.

1. The Bibliographic Application handles the Citation management and citation 
selection. Each citation is pushed into the word processor document at the 
current cursor location via a command on the Bibliographic Application.

2. The Word Processor handles citation selection and optionally some the 
citation management functions. The reference list is requested from the 
Bibliographic Application, it is displayed on the WP using it own browser 
panel, and the user selects the citation(s) to be inserted from list.The WP 
then requests the formatted citation text from the Bibliographic Application 
for display. 
 

http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Bibliographic_Services_API

Comments and improvements to this wiki page are encouraged.

David
-- 
---
David N. Wilson
Co-Project Lead for the Bibliographic 
OpenOffice.org Project
http://bibliographic.openoffice.org

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [dev-biblio] Fwd: [sw-discussion] Re: [dev-biblio] Re: [sw-discussion] Re: zotero and OOo

2007-02-11 Thread David Wilson
On Mon, 12 Feb 2007, Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
 On Feb 10, 2007, at 9:20 PM, David Wilson wrote:
  I put together my ideas about possible  Citeproc - Writer Interaction
  at
  http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Citeproc_Writer_Interaction

 I think we might need to pull back and get more abstract to address
 Mathias' question? It seems your diagram is pretty detailed.

 So he asked for:
  I would like to get a better understanding of the requirements for an
  exchange between WP and bib application.

 Do we have that outlined somewhere?

 To me, the minimum is, one needs to be able to:

 - insert citation (an ID -- ideally a URI -- and source metadata in the
 package)
 - chose local rendered style for citation and request rendered string
 be inserted (there will be a default local style, but variations
 depending on the position of the citation vis-a-vis other citations,
 whether the user has chosen to modify the local styling, etc.)
 - insert (rendered) bibliography

 The second level is to actually allow browsing of a data source from
 within the word-processor.

 Or something like that. I'm distracted with other things 
I will work on it today.

David
 Bruce

 -
 To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



-- 
---
David N. Wilson
Co-Project Lead for the Bibliographic 
OpenOffice.org Project
http://bibliographic.openoffice.org

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [dev-biblio] Fwd: [sw-discussion] Re: [dev-biblio] Re: [sw-discussion] Re: zotero and OOo

2007-02-11 Thread David Wilson
On Mon, 12 Feb 2007, Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
 On Feb 11, 2007, at 4:11 PM, David Wilson wrote:
  I will work on it today.

 OK, just to be clear, we're laying out the requirements fro a
 cross-application API. It would be used to assess whether ZOOM is good
 as is, whether it needs to be adapted, or we need something else.

 It seem KOffice might be interested in implementing it too.

 Bruce

I have put my first ideas about the cross-application API on the wiki and I 
will continue to develop it there.

http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Bibliographic_Services_API

Comments and additions  improvements are welcome.

david
-- 
---
David N. Wilson
Co-Project Lead for the Bibliographic 
OpenOffice.org Project
http://bibliographic.openoffice.org

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [dev-biblio] smarttags in OOo

2007-01-30 Thread David Wilson
On Sun, 28 Jan 2007, CPHennessy wrote:
 I'm not sure if it makes sense but would the smarttags feature which was
 recently added be useful to develope the citation component ?

 http://blogs.sun.com/GullFOSS/entry/successful_community_project_smart_tags

CPH,

It is good news that Smart Tags seem to be progressing as I view the 
smart 
tags as one of the essential elements that will make for possible for the new 
new bibliographic facility to built as a Extension Project. This seems to be 
the general view as the Bibliographic Project is now listed under 'Extension 
Projects' on the projects web page 
( http://projects.openoffice.org/index.html ).

Using Smart Tags will make it possible for developers using the Extension 
Toolkit to define new tags  in the document, or use existing tags in new 
ways, and add plug-in extension code to handle those tags, with the specific 
context and system menus. 
( http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Extensions )

This method will greatly aid our project because our developers will not need 
to learn how to make changes to the huge and complex OpenOffice code base, 
but will be able to work with the much simpler Extension Toolkit in C++, 
python or java. This is a skill set that should be much easier to recruit. 


regards

David
-- 
---
David N. Wilson
Co-Project Lead for the Bibliographic 
OpenOffice.org Project
http://bibliographic.openoffice.org

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [dev-biblio] important question

2007-01-24 Thread David Wilson
Bruce,

Support for formal local style seems a good idea. Do we need to 
consider at 
this point the issue of options of footnote citations ? If yes then 'formal 
local style' selection that includes variants with exclusions could handle 
much of that complexity and take it away from the GUI panel.

Footnote citation options are -

*Force Short/long title, 
*Suppress Publisher

regards

David



On Thursday 25 January 2007 9:14 am, Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
 On Jan 24, 2007, at 4:37 PM, David Wilson wrote:
  Ibidem has several other insert citation options including - a custom,
  manual
  entry for this instance only. See:
  http://bibliographic.openoffice.org/screenImages/
  IbidemDescription_html_m6ca0a53b.gif
 
  I do not propose that we blindly follow all the features of Ibidem but
  we
  should consider if they are worth supporting.

 Thanks guys. But, I'm overwhelmed with other work, so it would help if
 you could provide a list of reasonable values, instead of pointing me
 to sources of further research. :-)

 Right now I only see year-only and author-only) or some such. WRT to
 the prefix thing that James mentioned, I've long wondered whether that
 ought to be a text string (already supported) or a formal local style.
 I can see logic for the latter, given that if you have multi-reference
 citations, they often need to be sorted, and see and see also
 citation would need to be grouped and sorted independent of the primary
 reference(s).

 Bruce

 -
 To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



[dev-biblio] Fwd: OpenOffice.org Survey

2006-11-03 Thread David Wilson
FYI 

If you are interested you could support Tobias' research.

--  Forwarded Message  --

Subject: OpenOffice.org Survey
Date: Saturday 04 November 2006 6:51 am
From: Tobias Brenner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], 
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], 
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], 
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], 
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], 
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], 
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], 
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], 
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], 
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], 
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], 
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Dear project leaders,
my name is Tobias Brenner and I'm studying sociology at the university of
Munich. As I've always been interested in Open Office and Open Source
Software in general, I decided to write my dissertation about that. For my
exploration I've created a short questionary about the motivation and
organisation of the members of the OpenOffice.org Project.You would do me
a great favour, if you could forward the link to the questionary to as
many team members as possible after having filled it out yourself.
Here is the link to my questionary:
http://www.open-source-survey.com/Umfrage/index.html

Thank you so much.
Best regards
Tobias Brenner

---

-- 
---
David N. Wilson
Co-Project Lead for the Bibliographic 
OpenOffice Project
http://bibliographic.openoffice.org

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [dev-biblio] default db should be empty

2006-10-25 Thread David Wilson
Perhaps a compromise would be to have only one entry in the database, to show 
that it works and is easier (if you do not know the select delete record 
process) to remove.

Most mail apps came with a welcome mail message.

David 

On Thursday 26 October 2006 4:55 am, Matthias Basler wrote:
 Bruce wrote:
  I have never come across any database application that prefills
  content, unless perhaps it's generic content like country codes or
  whatever in a relational db (not relevant here, because a flat db).

 My guess is these sample books exist mainly for a psychological reason:
 If there are books in the database then people know it is working. If,
 instead people visit the bibliographic database for the first time and just
 see an empty table and a lot(!) of empty fields below, this might be enough
 to drive some simple souls off saying I dont' know where to start.

  Moreover, I don't recall ever meeting anyone who actually uses the
  existing bibliographic support.

 As you might remember I used it for my thesis, although not always in the
 way the designers of if intended it to be used. ;-)
-- 
---
David N. Wilson
Co-Project Lead for the Bibliographic 
OpenOffice Project
http://bibliographic.openoffice.org

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



[dev-biblio] Re: [sw-discussion] default db should be empty

2006-10-23 Thread David Wilson
On Tuesday 24 October 2006 3:44 am, you wrote:


 But if it is really disturbing, we have some protocols for changing a
 feature in OOo .. this usually start by reporting an issue. (So that the
 change is trackable)


http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=70760 Remove the sample 
content in the bibliographic database.

david

---
David N. Wilson
Co-Project Lead for the Bibliographic 
OpenOffice Project
http://bibliographic.openoffice.org

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [dev-biblio] For your reading pleasure ...

2006-10-23 Thread David Wilson
On Tuesday 24 October 2006 4:43 am, you wrote:
 The more I think about it, my half-hearted suggestion for a feature
 prohibiting saving a document with (recommended core) meta data blanks
 might not be so harsh.  
It is partly there already - the option Edit document properties before 
saving  in Tools-Options-Load/Save-General
This off by default. When it is on, the document properties dialog appears the 
first time you save the file. It does not force you add any text though. It 
just makes you feel guilty for being lazy when you press cancel.

Organisations could add macros to the document save process to force you to 
add text. But I have see the results of such policies - long lists of swear 
words in the catalogues and lots of aaa, bbb, acd etc. You can force people 
to type it is harder to keep them sensible.

David
-- 
---
David N. Wilson
Co-Project Lead for the Bibliographic 
OpenOffice Project
http://bibliographic.openoffice.org

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [dev-biblio] For your reading pleasure ...

2006-10-22 Thread David Wilson
On Monday 23 October 2006 7:38 am, Gannon Dick wrote:


 You do start to lose me just a little bit when you talk about a generic
 API for meta data.  For reasons outlined here ...

 http://www.geocities.com/gannon_dick/TheBigPicture.pdf (case sensitive)

 I believe that a meta data API needs a required core of elements.  When
 all is said and done, and at least where meta data is concerned, the
 appearance of information is not information.  Re-formats/rewrites
 don't do harm, but they don't do much good either. My fear is that a
 generic API would fail to put proper emphasis on key
 (independent/isolated/monatomic) elements. 

Currently, I understand that Metadata API has the metadata elements hardcoded 
so that if you wanted to add a new document metadata element 'Sponser' you 
need to change the code and the UI panel to add it in. If you wanted to add 
metadata for graphics would would to build new API for that.

The ODF metadata enhancements will provide the ability to tag document 
elements with metadata. Rather than build many hardcode metadata API modules 
- document-metadata, graphic-metadata, chart-metadata, text-section-metadata, 
it is proposed to have  'generic API for meta data' as convenience for the 
developers and writes of extension / add-on modules. 

A generic API makes no assumptions about what metadata elements will be 
included in the default set. That is a separate issue. (The OOo2DBK add-on 
module I mentioned yesterday - adds about 100 document metadata elements for 
French government requirements. It uses user-defined fields rather than the 
limited document metadata functions)

I do not really seen how a API can put proper emphasis on key 
(independent/isolated/monatomic) elements. We are talking about about code 
as basic as file-open, file-read, file-close. This is more a content and 
application design issue.

I understand your fear - often 'generic support' is code for no support at all 
or 'if you want it you can add it in yourself'. This not we we intend. A bit 
like the well know 'limited only by your imagination' which means no knows 
how to use it.

David


-- 
---
David N. Wilson
Co-Project Lead for the Bibliographic 
OpenOffice Project
http://bibliographic.openoffice.org

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [dev-biblio] generic structured fields, citations

2006-10-19 Thread David Wilson
Jakob 

I have been reading the Extensions project documentation 
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Extensions .

I get the impression that what you are trying to should be possible. It might 
be that you need to add two OObasic macros - one that initialise/opens your 
file at document open and one that closes/saves your document at document 
close ?

It might be worth putting you question to the extensions list.

David

On Thursday 19 October 2006 10:42 pm, Jakob Lechner wrote:
 Hello,

 On Thu, 2006-09-21 at 08:53 -0400, Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
  See the archive I have attached to the message archived at this link.
 
  http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office-metadata/200608/msg00016.htm
 l
 
  It reflects how I've been thinking about storing the metadata. So
  basically there are domain or feature specific metadata files that get
  registered in the manifest with a text/rdf+xml mimetype, and I
  imagine specific functionality could be responsible for different
  chunks of metadata (though because a common model, they could be
  linked).
 
  Let me know if you have any thoughts about that, and about the field
  to link to it.

 Looks good, that's quite similar how we are planning to include metadata
 in odt archives.

 I have been working on another project but now I'll
 be concentrating on the metadata project again. Actually I
 have to implement some sort of prototype as fast as possible
 because we need it for a presentation.

 As discussed earlier we want to include xml metadata in
 odt archives and implement fields that can read and modify
 the content of a given tag of the xml structure.
 So the field actually needs a reference to the xml file
 it is linked to and a reference to a tag within that xml file
 (this reference could be a xpath expression).

 The field could stored in the content.xml file like this:
 text:xml-field text:name=field1 xlink:href=customXml/item1.xml
 xpath=/contacts[0]/surname /

 The first thing I've tried was to store xml metadata files into a
 odt zip archive: I have created a new folder in the archive and then
 I've included the xml files that contain metadata in this folder.
 Finally I've added entries in the manifest.xml file for the newly
 created folder and for each one of the xml files:

 manifest:file-entry manifest:media-type= manifest:full-
 path=customXml//
 manifest:file-entry manifest:media-type=text/xml
 manifest:fullpath=customXml/item1.xml/

 I was able to open the odt file in Writer but when I added a word in the
 document and stored it again, our xml files and the entries in the
 manifest file were gone.

 I guess the reason for this is that Openoffice only includes files in
 the archive that are referenced in the document.

 So I guess it will be necessary to adapt the routine in Openoffice that
 stores text documents. Could someone tell me where to find the code that
 loads/stores textdocuments from/to odt archives? I have read something
 about the XLoadable and XStoreable interfaces but I haven't found the
 implementation for Writer documents yet.


 Please tell me if you have any further ideas or remarks about what I
 have to take care about.



 Best regards

-- 
---
David N. Wilson
Co-Project Lead for the Bibliographic 
OpenOffice Project
http://bibliographic.openoffice.org

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [dev-biblio] taking the biscuit

2006-10-18 Thread David Wilson
On Thursday 19 October 2006 3:48 am, Jon Rubin wrote:
 Hi Bruce,
 Apologies to the list members, I realise that in life three things are
 inevitable: death, taxes and lost data but sometimes the latter can
 happen at a very bad time, and inevitably when you've just done a lot of
 work.
 As for Sun (and let me make it clear I do not include and list members
 as causes for my pessimism) I can remember when OO 1.0 arrived and
 bibliography enhancements were being promised for 2.0 ...
I remember too.

 It was a Windows XP (for all users) install and the biblio file is in
 this folder:

 C:\Program Files\OpenOffice.org 2.0\presets\database


 Two questions of my own: has anybody written a guide on how to import
 the old 1.x  database into the 2. database because although I have done
 it, it did not seem at all straightforward and of course I can't now
 remember how I did it.
As far as I know there is no difference between the OOo version 1.x and 
version 2.x bibliographic databases. (i.e non of my change/enhancement 
requests were actioned)

The data base file is called biblio.dbf  and it is located on my linux system 
in the directory 

[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/.openoffice.org2/user/database/biblio

So importing the bibliography is just a matter of copying the 
old /biblio/biblio.dbf to the location of the new database. In your case do 
you have an old 
 
C:\Program Files\OpenOffice.org 1.0.x\presets\database

directory left still ?


 And also how to have the bibliography database somewhere other than the
 default folder, I have tried but all that happened would be that no data
 would show at all when I wanted to insert a bibliography field.

Yes it is a a real pain that when there is a problem with the bibliographic 
database, the application does nothing - there are no error messages of the 
type 

Cannot find the bibliographic database at C:\Program Files\OpenOffice.org 
1.0.4\presets\database\
or 
The database at C:\Program Files\OpenOffice.org 1.0.4\presets\database\ is 
invalid

However, to change the location of the database -
First, understand that the bibliographic application looks for a database 
called 'Bibliography' and a table called 'biblio' in that database. 

In the case of the standard Xbase (.dbf) bibliographic database the database 
is a directory called /biblio and the table is a .dbf file in that 
directory called biblio.dbf

You can change the location of the database 
By using the File-New-Database wizard.
Create a new database called, say 'Bibliography-new'

Then using the menu option-

 Tools-Options-OpenOffice.org Base-Database
You should now have at least two databases listed, the original Bibliography 
and Bibliography-new.
In that Panel edit the original Bibliography to change its name to 
Bibliography-old and change Bibliography-new to Bibliography.

The Bibliographic application should use the new database, but if is not happy 
it will keep quite.

I will put this info on the popular 
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Bibliographic_Hints_and_Tips
wiki page. 

I hope this helps, if you have any trouble then contact me.

regards

David




 regards,

 Jon.

 Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
  Hi Jon,
 
  Quick question: can you just confirm where your database was stored? I
  need to pass on the info to the Writer people.
 
  On this ...
 
  On 10/18/06, Jon Rubin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  OK, so I understand that Sun has very little interest in actually
  getting the bibliography project the support it needs ...
 
  I actually don't think this is quite right. We have recently had quite
  positive interactions with the Sun team on this and are optimistic
  we'll make progress. They're just stretched quite thin with all the
  work they need to do.
 
  Bruce
 
  -
  To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

 ___
 All new Yahoo! Mail The new Interface is stunning in its simplicity and
 ease of use. - PC Magazine http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html

 -
 To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

-- 
---
David N. Wilson
Co-Project Lead for the Bibliographic 
OpenOffice Project
http://bibliographic.openoffice.org

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



[dev-biblio] OOo 2.0.4 has a built in BibTeX export filter.

2006-10-15 Thread David Wilson
The just released OOo 2.0.4 has a built in BibTeX export filter.

  File-Export-File Format='Bibtex (.bib)'.

I have written some instructions on how to set up a  RIS and BibTeX import 
filter  on the wiki hints and tips page. You can easily add  COPAC, endnote, 
ISI web of science, Pubmed import as these are also supported by the bibutils 
data converter.

http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Bibliographic_Hints_and_Tips

regards

David
-- 
---
David N. Wilson
Co-Project Lead for the Bibliographic 
OpenOffice Project
http://bibliographic.openoffice.org

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



[dev-biblio] How to use Zoterero with OOo

2006-10-08 Thread David Wilson
Dear Bibliographic list members,

You may be aware that the Firefox bibliographic add-on Zotero is now available 
to the public and that it uses Bruce D'Arcus's CiteProc engine to produce the 
bibliographic table.

I believe the Zotero team will be building an interface to MS Word and to OOo 
Writer at some stage.

For those who would like to use Zotero with OOo now I have described a method 
for doing so -

8. How to load Zotero reference data into Openoffice 
9. How to use Zotero to format your OOo Bibliography 

On the Hints and Tips Page -
 http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Bibliographic_Hints_and_Tips


regards

David
-- 
---
David N. Wilson
Co-Project Lead for the Bibliographic 
OpenOffice Project
http://bibliographic.openoffice.org

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



[dev-biblio] [users-biblio] Amended Project Plans

2006-10-03 Thread David Wilson
On Wednesday 04 October 2006 8:53 am, you wrote:
 On 03/10/06, David Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  Whilst we need to wait for some developments with ODF, the Extension
  Toolkit and some Writer enhancements (formatted text in fields). There is
  still plenty of design work that can be done. We could probably start GUI
  design work for the new Bibliographic panels. Any volunteers ?

 Hm. Depends. Does it require prior familiarity with OOo internals and/or
 development process? :p

Not really starting from the list of fields and settings we have to deal with
- make nice GUI designs.

However, the add/edit reference data is a complex issue though, we want a
simple interface so the low skill / knowledge users can easily add a
reference, but the 'power' options must be there for the professional.

Also some insight is need to how different people will want to work.

I would guess a tabbed interface and perhaps some 'More option' buttons for
the power users to access the more complex and specialised options.

Lots on fun here - every will have there own view.


David
--
---
David N. Wilson
Co-Project Lead for the Bibliographic
OpenOffice Project
http://bibliographic.openoffice.org

---

-- 
---
David N. Wilson
Co-Project Lead for the Bibliographic 
OpenOffice Project
http://bibliographic.openoffice.org

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [dev-biblio] Hierarchical Keyword Tree

2006-09-27 Thread David Wilson
Leonard Mada.

Your have raised some very interesting questions. I think the idea of 
setting 
a scheme for sharing subject specific key word lists is well worth 
considering - and rather simple to implement.

David


On Wednesday 27 September 2006 7:51 am, Leonard Mada wrote:
 Hi,

 I made some progress regarding the keywords. Unfortunately, I believe
 that a plain keyword list won't solve much of the current problems; see
 http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Bib-Keywords paragraph 2.2
 Limitations of Current Keyword Strategies for some reasons why basic
 keywords are far from adequate.

 I believe that a solution to this problem could lie in a hierarchical
 keyword tree. Users would be allowed to create dynamically such a
 keyword tree (using existing keywords) to enhance the capabilities of
 the search strategies. See the paragraph 3.1.2 Hierarchical Keyword
 Tree on the same page for a more extended discussion.

 Because all this is virtually new land, I would like to open a
 brainstorming session. I would appreciate any comments and suggestions.

 I come up with another idea regarding the standardisation of keywords. I
 believe that the ultimate goal is to have standard keywords, too.
 However, as this will be difficult, a possible solution is to let users
 specify their own keywords. Have a talk-back feature. Collect used
 keywords over a period of 1-2 years. And build a list with the most
 frequently used keywords. These are likely to be used more widely and
 therefore could be bundled with future versions of OOo. Of course, users
 could change this list and adapt it further to their specific needs, but
 it would be a starting point for their own list.

 Kind regards,

 Leonard Mada
 [aka discoleo]

 -
 To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

-- 
---
David N. Wilson
Co-Project Lead for the Bibliographic 
OpenOffice Project
http://bibliographic.openoffice.org

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [dev-biblio] Re: [sw-discussion] Smart Tags in Openoffice Writer

2006-09-01 Thread David Wilson
On Saturday 02 September 2006 1:14 am, Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
 On 9/1/06, Jakob Lechner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  We consider the primary use case of smart tags to be to link
  words (that are recognized by an external library) in a document with
  actions provided by this library. The user usually doesn't add patterns
  manually, but another application provides the patterns.
 
  For example if you have an inventory system, it could register inventory
  IDs with OpenOffice and so have any documents containing inventory IDs
  be possible gateways to the inventory system.

Jakob,

What you call 'Smart Tags' tags is very similar to the proposed 'Intelligent 
Document Tags' described in the 'StarOffice / OpenOffice.org “Q” Product 
Concept' document. http://tools.openoffice.org/releases/q-concept.html

This document describes proposed enhancements that were to be built into OOo 
version 2. However, much to my disappointment 'Intelligent Document Tags' 
were not included in the OOo version 2 product. It was never clear to me why 
this was left out but I believe it was to lack of priority against the 
available development resources. I was hoping we could have have used 
'Intelligent Document Tags' to build our enhanced bibliographic facility. Now 
we have to take other routes.

David


-- 
---
David N. Wilson
Co-Project Lead for the Bibliographic 
OpenOffice Project
http://bibliographic.openoffice.org

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [dev-biblio] more on word support

2006-07-16 Thread David Wilson
I read through the exchange and I think you put your position very well  and 
the response was rather defensively or evasive.

David

On Saturday 15 July 2006 10:52 am, Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
 So based on back-and-forth with the product manager responsible for
 the new bib support in Word 2007*:

 1) they won't support footnote/endnote citations in v1
 2) seems (?) they don't support first/subsequent distinctions in
 author-year 3) they think it perfectly fine to have styles implemented in
 raw XSLT (they don't appear interested in using CSL or a CSL-like
 abstraction)

 So this tells us where we can differentiate OOo. There's going to be a
 lot of frustration with their default support, particularly among the
 historians.

 Also, on 3, it should possible to swap in a citeproc-like solution,
 and so get support for CSL in Word through the back door. Hmm ...
 wonder if I should try to productize citeproc for the Word market?
 ;-)

 Bruce

 * see comments at
 http://blogs.msdn.com/joe_friend/archive/2006/07/13/664960.aspx

 -
 To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

-- 
---
David N. Wilson
Co-Project Lead for the Bibliographic 
OpenOffice Project
http://bibliographic.openoffice.org

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [dev-biblio] more on word support

2006-07-16 Thread David Wilson
On Sunday 16 July 2006 9:47 pm, Bruce D'Arcus wrote:


 And I think with some caveats, they will have met these goals. I am
 particularly intrigued by their no-local-database approach, where the
 editing forms are only editing XML data embedded in the file package.

 This is something we need to seriously consider for OOo (though we can
 do a better job).

I have been think about this question, what do we need a local SQL database 
for? And how does it need to be integrated with the Bibliographic 
application?

SQL databases are good for very large quantities of data, and would  essential 
if the the volume of data was greater that could could be held in list in 
memory.(which is now a very big list)  This would not be the case for the 
citations to a single document. SQL databases are also good for sharing data 
and update facilities amongst many users.

An SQL database is not necessary to store the local citations in documents 
even temporarily as they are worked on. However Bib users may want to store 
collections of citations, in some manner, and SQL databases are probably a 
mechanism we may want to support. If only to provide a browse and 'insert 
into document' function, as would do for internet / remote database search 
and insert.

What the no-local-database approach, where the editing forms are only editing 
XML data embedded in the file package implies though is OOoBib would NOT be 
providing a mechanism or maintaining your collection of citations. That is, 
looking through the collection and spotting a error and fixing it. 
Perhaps suggest we advise people to use one of the many third party tools for 
that purpose. We can certainly do this in the early stages as we develop the 
application.

One of the difficulties with a building a close connection between the xml 
local storage and a SQL database, is that the xml data will support formatted 
text, included embedded document objects (mathematical formula etc). 
SQL database are ascii based. Of course a one way to deal with this is to have 
a ascii version of each potentially formatted field and the formatted 
version. (you need the plain ascii field for searching)

If we want to store and maintain bibliographic collections it would be easier 
if the collections were stored in a xml database such as eXist, and the field 
conversion problems disappear.

I am thinking that the xml database for local storage of citation collections 
would be the a good choice as the some the local editing tools would work in 
the same way on the in-document citations and the xml database citations. 
This is least work option for storage of collections of citations. With a SQL 
database we would need to build two sets of editing tools - xml and SQL.

I do not have any firm ideas about this, these are just my musings.

David

-- 
---
David N. Wilson
Co-Project Lead for the Bibliographic 
OpenOffice Project
http://bibliographic.openoffice.org

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



[dev-biblio] more on Keywords

2006-07-12 Thread David Wilson
One of the nice things about wiki's is that you set up a page and the pixies 
come in night and make it better. (Not at all like the Deteriorating Angel 
that comes in the night to make you a tiny bit older).

I set up a wiki page about keywords with  discoleo's suggestions about 
keywords -
 discoleo wrote ---

 One way to better sort articles is based on Keywords. However, there is
 another way I will shortly describe here.

 There are a number of categories a research paper can belong to:

 * Basic Research
 * Theoretical Research (especially in Math/Physics)
  *Trials:
  **randomized controlled trial
  **Meta-analysis
  **other trial
  *Review
  *Guideline
  *Correspondence
  *Editorial
  *Epidemiologic Study
  *Case Report
  *Images in clinical medicine (some Journals have such a feature/ could be
 a subgroup of Case Report)
  *Questions/ Question-Answers
discoleo has been thinking more about about keywords and has added some 
suggestions about -
 
*How to standardize
*How to implement this
*Requirements 
*Top Categories

see http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Bib-Keywords

regards

David
-- 
---
David N. Wilson
Co-Project Lead for the Bibliographic 
OpenOffice Project
http://bibliographic.openoffice.org

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



[dev-biblio] Footnotes and with intext citations.

2006-07-10 Thread David Wilson
I have been thinking about the options needed for the Insert/ Edit Citation 
panel.  

Yet another history complexity. 

This one is from my thesis. Whilst the thesis citation style is Chicago 
footnotes, the thesis is principally an examination of two texts and I 
followed the convention of listing the Abbreviations at the start of the 
document , ie. 
-
Táin LL  Táin Bó Cúalnge from the Book of Leinster. Translated and 
edited by 
Cecile O’Rahilly. Dublin: Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies, 1970.
 
Táin I  Táin Bó Cúalnge Recension 1. Translated and edited by Cecile O’Rahilly. 
Dublin: Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies, 1976.
-
And then using intext citations to these two main texts ie.

---
After Fergus had left, Etarcumul taunted Cú Chulainn:

I think you are fine indeed. You are a comely, splendid, handsome youth with 
brilliant, numerous, various feats of arms. But as for reckoning you among 
goodly heroes or warriors or champions or sledge-hammers of smiting, we do 
not do so nor count you at all. (Táin LL 183)
--
All other citations are footnote citation. This practise is is followed 
because otherwise the text would have a couple of hundred very short 
footnotes of the type - Táin LL 183

So the the upshot of this - Maybe we do need a intext/ footnote selector on 
the  Insert/ Edit Citation panel, even though the document style will select 
which is the default position.  The option may be grayed out if the document 
style really prohibits such mixing. As far as I can tell neither Endnote or 
Ibidem has this ability. 

BTW the 'Táin LL' and the 'Táin 1' strings could be selected in the Ibidem  
panel using Short title (or a custom short title)  and the Exclude Author 
name option.

Maybe we are a position were we could come up with a (almost) definitive list 
of the option the Insert / Edit Citation panel needs to support ?


-- 
---
David N. Wilson
Co-Project Lead for the Bibliographic 
OpenOffice Project
http://bibliographic.openoffice.org

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [dev-biblio] localization?

2006-07-05 Thread David Wilson
My guess is that for the final production version that would eventually ship 
with OpenOffice, would need need either separate language versions of the CSL 
files or  internationalization  via the use strings in a separate files.

In styles like Chicago there are a few language specific strings like 
Publisher not known. Although I do not know enough styles to know if this 
is the case with all of them

If as you say using lookup language strings makes the csl files to0 complex, 
then producing separate language versions may not be as difficult as it may 
first seem. This can be done through macro processors or other conversion 
tools. This could made easier if the csl files could include a indicator for 
the strings that may need language conversion. 

Using this approach the user can modify their own standalone csl files, and 
can even share them on web site as we have discussed before. 

David


On Thursday 06 July 2006 2:29 am, Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
 I think it's time to move this to the relevant lists:

 Awhile back I made the decision (after soliciting comments) that all
 CSL files would be language-specific. I did this because in the real
 world of academic publishing (which is really the target) styles are
 almost by definition language-specific. One does not typically use more
 generic styles like APA or Chicago, but publisher or journal specific
 variations, each of which are aimed at a particular target audience and
 language.

 Matthias Steffens has suggested I allow for optional
 internationalization extensions, so that if a non-english user, say,
 was using the apa style (defined in english), it would lookup the
 strings in a separate file.

 My worry about this approach is it adds needless complexity (flles are
 more complex, no longer self-contained, etc.), for unclear benefit.
 Yes, in some cases it will result in redundancy and duplication, but
 does that really matter in this case?

 I can get into specifics if needed, but thought I'd start with the
 basic question of requirements/use case.

 1) Do we care about localization within styles? Should a user be able
 to define (and choose) a style independent of language?

 2) Is it important that style files be self-contained?

 Anything else?

 Bruce

 -
 To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

-- 
---
David N. Wilson
Co-Project Lead for the Bibliographic 
OpenOffice Project
http://bibliographic.openoffice.org

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



[dev-biblio] The Vote for Bibliographic Enhancements

2006-06-29 Thread David Wilson
Bibliographic List Members, 

I would like to thank the list members who voted. The vote count now 94 and 
Bibliographic Enhancement is now 8th highest ranking Feature or Enhancment in 
the issues list. This should help to raise our profile in the scheduling of 
development activities.

To see the current ranking of projects with over 70 votes you can use this 
very long URL -

http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/buglist.cgi?issue_status=NEWissue_status=STARTEDissue_status=REOPENEDemail1=emailtype1=exactemailassigned_to1=1email2=emailtype2=exactemailreporter2=1issueidtype=includeissue_id=changedin=votes=70chfieldfrom=chfieldto=Nowchfieldvalue=short_desc=short_desc_type=substringlong_desc=long_desc_type=substringissue_file_loc=issue_file_loc_type=substringstatus_whiteboard=status_whiteboard_type=substringkeywords=keywords_type=anytokensfield0-0-0=nooptype0-0-0=noopvalue0-0-0=cmdtype=doitnewqueryname=order=Reuse+same+sort+as+last+timeSubmit+query=Submit+query

regards

David

On Sunday 25 June 2006 9:21 am, David Wilson wrote:
 Bibliographic Project List members,

 One of the ways the OpenOffice developers access the importance of fixed
 and enhancements to OpenOffice is through project members voting on the
 issue voting system. I raised this issue some time ago but it is worth
 raising again.

 The bibliographic enhancement issue 'Proposals
 for Bibliographic facility enhancements.'  has only 21 votes!



 regards

 David

-- 
---
David N. Wilson
Co-Project Lead for the Bibliographic 
OpenOffice Project
http://bibliographic.openoffice.org

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



[dev-biblio] Fwd: Re: [dev] Will OOo version 3 preserve backwards file compatibility with OOo 2 ?

2006-06-28 Thread David Wilson
FYI

--  Forwarded Message  --

Subject: Re: [dev]   Will OOo version 3 preserve backwards  file compatibility 
with OOo 2 ?
Date: Wednesday 28 June 2006 7:05 pm
From: Kay Ramme - Sun Germany - Hamburg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: dev@openoffice.org

David,

David Wilson wrote:
 In terms of the file format they would be. Older versions of Writer would
 just ignore the extensions. The question is how much backwards
 compatibility do we need to build in.

 In the current version of Writer every  time  you insert a Bibliography
 Entry / Citation the full set of bibliographic data (author,  publisher
 etc.) is stored with each Entry, and no link is made with the source of the
 entry. The only way to correct a Bibliography Entry is to find each one and
 edit its data, or correct the database and reinsert the relevant
 Bibliography Entries.

backward compatibility is often regarded a holy cow. The ones saying
that you never ever are allowed to break it (often representing
commercial entities), while others saying that such a beast never
existed (often voiced by open source protagonists), that you are always
allowed to do whatever you want, at least on the ABI level.

So, my personal approach mostly is, if I do not expect to annoy to many
people, I just break it and see what happens, otherwise I keep it.

 David

Sorry for not being to helpful here, I am sure Michael Brauer has more
to say


Kay

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

---

-- 
---
David N. Wilson
Co-Project Lead for the Bibliographic 
OpenOffice Project
http://bibliographic.openoffice.org

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



[dev-biblio] Enhance the Text-Field or Bookmark functions to include formatted text

2006-06-26 Thread David Wilson
I would like to enter an issue to enhance database and text fields to support 
formatted text. 

The Bibliographic project wants this enhancement because some data fields in 
the bibliography need to support formatted text. For example some scientific 
document titles need to be able to display words in Italics. Mathematical 
titles need to represent equations.  Currently fields can only hold 
unformatted text.

This enhancement would would  be of wider interest than just to the 
Bibliographic project.

Oliver Specht has suggested that there are two ways in which this might be 
achieved - to enhance the text-field, or by enhancing bookmarks. (I have 
quoted his comments below.)

I would like to get some discussion on this topic and to determine which is 
the better approach.

regards

David

=

In discussing how to achieve formatted text in fields, Oliver Specht 
[EMAIL PROTECTED], wrote the following - 

The Writer has two possible content types that could be extended to support 
the citation element (and other elements generically) 
The first is the text field (com.sun.star.text.TextField). A generic field 
service could be added to the API of the Writer that would have a property 
that contains a DOM tree. This DOM tree contains the citation-element. The 
bibliography creates the DOM tree of those fields and inserts them into the 
text together with a string that contains the presentation text. 
Such fields can only be formatted as a whole. It is not possible to have e.g. 
parts of this presentation printed in bold. This text can not be spanned over 
paragraphs. The text cannot be changed manually. 

Another possible solution is to add a new object that is similar to bookmarks 
(com.sun.star.text.Bookmark). This extended bookmark would also carry a DOM 
tree property. This 'bookmark' can span over formatted text longer than a 
paragraph. The user can modify the text inside of this bookmark easily. 
In both cases an interface to access the new elements needs to be implemented 
(sorted by document position). 
The DOM interfaces are in com.sun.star.xml.dom. (e.g. XDocument.idl, 
XNode.idl, XElement.idl) 

There's also a service com.sun.star.xml.dom.DocumentBuilder available that 
supports the creation of DOM trees. 

The bibliography component works on the DOM tree and can manipulate it 
independently. In case of using a field the component has to set the 
resulting string representation of the reference at this field. 
Using the field is a bit easier and using the bookmark is more powerful. 

This issues is also detailed at the wiki address below. The wiki page has web 
links to some of the relevant api and DOM descriptions.

http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Writer_enhancements_for_OOBib#Enhanced_Field_or_Bookmark_Function_to_Include_Formatted_Text

Regards

David
-- 
---
David N. Wilson
Co-Project Lead for the Bibliographic 
OpenOffice Project
http://bibliographic.openoffice.org

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



[dev-biblio] Will OOo version 3 preserve backwards file compatibility with OOo 2 ?

2006-06-26 Thread David Wilson
Can anyone advise us as whether OOo version 3 will preserve backwards  file 
compatibility with OOo 2 ? Has this matter been decided yet, or does the 
major release number mean that compatibility does not need to be conserved ?

In designing the bibliographic enhancements the Bibliographic Project is 
discussing the issue of backwards file compatibility.  The Bibliographic 
Project is hoping to see major enhancements to Citation and Bibliography 
support in OOo version 3 (if not before).

The OpenDocument file format version 1.2, due sometime in 2007, will included 
improved citation and metadata support and we are working out how Writer can 
best utilise these enhancements, as well as implementing our improved 
citation and bibliography formatting process, called CiteProc.

If we need to maintain backwards file compatibility between OOo versions 2 and 
3 then we would need to maintain the old and the new citation and 
bibliography definition in the save file. If we are not maintaining backwards 
file compatibility then the design is much simpler in Writer as the import / 
export filters will handle the conversions.

For more details see - 
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Writer_enhancements_for_OOBib#Backwards_and_Forwards_Compatibility


regards

David
-- 
---
David N. Wilson
Co-Project Lead for the Bibliographic 
OpenOffice Project
http://bibliographic.openoffice.org

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



[dev-biblio] Important: Please Vote for Bibliographic Enhancements.

2006-06-24 Thread David Wilson
Bibliographic Project List members,

One of the ways the OpenOffice developers access the importance of fixed and 
enhancements to OpenOffice is through project members voting on the issue 
voting system. I raised this issue some time ago but it is worth raising 
again.

I have just checked the current list of votes on issues, this query list all 
issues with more than 20 votes. You see this list using this very long URL-

http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/buglist.cgi?resort=1issue_status=NEW;issue_status=STARTED;issue_status=REOPENED;email1=;emailtype1=exact;emailassigned_to1=1;email2=;emailtype2=exact;emailreporter2=1;issueidtype=include;issue_id=;changedin=;votes=20;chfieldfrom=;chfieldto=Now;chfieldvalue=;short_desc=;short_desc_type=substring;long_desc=;long_desc_type=substring;issue_file_loc=;issue_file_loc_type=substring;status_whiteboard=;status_whiteboard_type=substring;keywords=;keywords_type=anytokens;field0-0-0=noop;type0-0-0=noop;value0-0-0=;newqueryname=;Submit%20query=Submit%20queryorder=issues.votes%20desc%2C%20issues.priority%2C%20issues.issue_type

The issue with the highest vote is 'allow import of SVG (Scalable Vector 
Graphics)' with 317 votes. The bibliographic enhancement issue 'Proposals for 
Bibliographic facility enhancements.'  has only 21 votes!

Each user has five votes to allocate. I urge every one on these lists to 
allocate one or all of their votes to the issue 4260 'Proposals for 
Bibliographic facility enhancements.'

To vote is easy, you just go to the OpenOffice site 
http://www.openoffice.org
Click on the 'My Pages' tab and login in with your username and password. 

and then got to the voting page for that issue -

http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/showvotes.cgi?voteon=4260

and enter the number of votes  1-5 you would like to allocate to  'Proposals 
for Bibliographic facility enhancements.' in the text box next to that issue. 
Click on the 'Submit button at the bottom of that page.

If everyone on the mailing lists does this we should boost our vote the top of 
the issue list.


regards

David
-- 
---
David N. Wilson
Co-Project Lead for the Bibliographic 
OpenOffice Project
http://bibliographic.openoffice.org

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [dev-biblio] citation GUI?

2006-06-19 Thread David Wilson
On Tuesday 20 June 2006 9:21 am, Bruce D'Arcus wrote:

 On further thought, I wonder if we shouldn't make things a little
 easier and just do:

  cite:biblioref cite:key=doe99a cite:style=year
cite:detail cite:units=pages cite:value=23-24/
  /cite:biblioref

 ... or even:

  cite:biblioref cite:key=doe99a cite:style=year
 cite:pages=23-24/

 The latter would require a standard list of attributes there, though,
 which might be a little problematic.

If detail-units really means location-units I think it may be worth 
preserving.

I think we need a location data level even when we have not yet thought up all 
the location types. Wouldn't it make it easier  to process a given style - 

  Author, (publishing details), location

If location-units are an either a separate list (possibly user extensible) or 
at least gathered in one place in the code.

It terms of program maintenance if would be nicer to add

 LP record=A/B side: Track# 

to the types of locations than to just add in at 'the right place' in the CSL 
code.


David

 

---
David N. Wilson
Co-Project Lead for the Bibliographic 
OpenOffice Project
http://bibliographic.openoffice.org

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



[dev-biblio] Fwd: Site Infrastructure Upgrade: Tuesday 20 June

2006-06-16 Thread David Wilson


--  Forwarded Message  --

Subject: [project leads] Site Infrastructure Upgrade: Tuesday 20 June
Date: Saturday 17 June 2006 12:54 am
From: Louis Suarez-Potts [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: dev@openoffice.org, dev@native-lang.openoffice.org, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

(Apologies: I meant, of course, 20 June, not 20 March. :-)

All,

Commencing Tuesday 20 June at 17:00 UTC, the OpenOffice.org site
infrastructure will be upgraded. The main site, including mail lists,
CVS, Issue Tracker (IssueZilla), and all other elements will be
functionally offline for the duration, anticipated to be forty-eight
(48) hours. Neither the OpenOffice.org wiki [0], nor anoncvs will be
affected. As well, during the outage, a placeholder webpage listing
download sites will be posted to www.openoffice.org.

CollabNet has worked with the community on this upgrade for several
months and together we have sought to ensure that the migration to
the new (and improved) infrastructure will go smoothly.  We regret
the inconvenience this outage will produce.

Project leads: Please inform your communities of the migration-
related outage and upcoming infrastructure; thanks.

For detailed (and useful) information on the upgrade process, see the
wiki related to it [1].


Some points...

* The new infrastructure, CollabNet Enterprise Edition 3.5.1, should
be faster and more robust. For more information on the CEE 3.5.1, see
the release notes [2]

* Staticization has been improved and html pages will be updated
more reliably and quickly

* The new site allows for the use of the modern versioning system
Subversion, and projects can explore its functionality

* As to mail lists, forums, and other established functionality, such
as Issue Tracker (IssueZilla), all that remains as present

* SSH users should notice that new site will have a new IP address

* Note: For a period of about twelve hours after the migration
process, we will have to run several indexers, and these may affect
the behaviour of list and forum archives, among other things;
performance may also be affected



[0] http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Main_Page
[1] http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Infrastructure_Upgrade
[2] http://www.collab.net/rn/3_5_1.html



Louis Suarez-Potts
Community Manager
CollabNet



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

---

-- 
---
David N. Wilson
Co-Project Lead for the Bibliographic 
OpenOffice Project
http://bibliographic.openoffice.org

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



[dev-biblio] Keywords

2006-06-12 Thread David Wilson
discoleo has submitted an interesting enhancement request. I created a wiki 
page http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Bib-Keywords to discuss such 
issues.  
===
discoleo wrote ---

One way to better sort articles is based on Keywords. However, there is 
another way I will shortly describe here. 

There are a number of categories a research paper can belong to: 

* Basic Research 
* Theoretical Research (especially in Math/Physics) 
 *Trials: 
 **randomized controlled trial 
 **Meta-analysis 
 **other trial 
 *Review 
 *Guideline 
 *Correspondence 
 *Editorial 
 *Epidemiologic Study 
 *Case Report 
 *Images in clinical medicine (some Journals have such a feature/ could be a 
subgroup of Case Report) 
 *Questions/ Question-Answers 

If there are other relevant categories, feel free to implement them as well. 
This is especially useful when searching for all trials on a given matter 
(e.g. for writing a meta-analysis or writing a review or a guideline), or for 
a specific case report. 

I do have some 2500 of articles saved on my computer and searching for the 
correct file is a nightmare. It may seem that 2500 articles is a huge number, 
however in infections diseases this is only a minimum to start with. 
It is useful to have a field storing this information. Although custom fields 
exist, this is a feature that should be standard. It allows searching (and 
grouping) articles on a more powerful basis. 

Submitted as issue number 66353 by discoleo at Openoffice.org. 


==
Implementation comment by dnw
==
How should this be implemented ? Most bib and document systems I have seem to 
think that adding a field for keywords is enough and let the user the invent 
their own categories. I have been involved in IT development and document 
management systems and have had enough lectures from librarians (ie 
professional indexers) to know that this just leads to a big unmanageable 
mess, which librarians are often called in to try to fix. Once you have a 
categorical mess it is generally hopeless.

Also a good keyword system has a good set of aliases defined. One insurance 
company was providing different compensation for fractured limbs than for 
broken limbs, because their compensation history search system did not have 
these aliases defined. The cases and the compensation history diverged as 
each of the staff used their preferred term.

So --- Should we build pre-defined document category sets that a user could 
select one for each document collection. i.e. Medical Research, Physical 
Sciences, Social Sciences etc ?
-- 
---
David N. Wilson
Co-Project Lead for the Bibliographic 
OpenOffice Project
http://bibliographic.openoffice.org

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [dev-biblio] intro. and contributions

2006-05-28 Thread David Wilson
Ryan,

Thanks for your interest and offer of assistance. Unfortunately we have 
no 
finished software to test yet, and what we have is not yet sufficiently 
developed to document. 

If you would like to exercise your skills in writing you could look over the 
project web pages for areas that could be improved. Most of the web and wiki 
pages have been written by me, and I would consider my writing 'average'. In 
fact all through primary school my report's read - David's writing and 
spelling must improve if he is to do well next year.

There seems to be lots of bounty sites. Here is Gnomes - 
http://www.gnome.org/bounties/
  
I have not looked closely to try to work out where our tasks would fit into 
the $100-4000 price range, but I would guess the middle to the higher end.

The problem is not so much are complexity of the coding itself, but the 
requirement for learning about OpenOffice programming structures. We could 
offer a lower bounty first to the small pool  people who understand OOo. We 
would have pay more if the person had to learn all that stuff just to do the 
task.


David

On Monday 29 May 2006 1:58 am, Ryan Cragun wrote:
 I haven't introduced myself.  I'm a graduate student in sociology who
 uses bibliographic software all the time and am very interested in an
 OpenOffice version.  Unfortunately, I have no programming ability, but
 I'm happy to test the software and work on documentation - the two areas
 where I can contribute.  I'd also be willing to put up some funds for
 the so-called bounties, but I don't have much.  How much are we talking?

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [dev-biblio] Base forms (was Minimal Target)

2006-04-05 Thread David Wilson
On Wednesday 05 April 2006 8:49 pm, Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
 On Apr 5, 2006, at 12:26 AM, David Wilson wrote:
  You can use Xforms in OOo but it is harder to use than Base forms
  which are of
  the point and click type, to link database fields to form fields.

 So what kind of form functionality does Base provide?  Can we do stuff
 like auto-complete fields?
It has standard stuff like pick lists, but they may function like 
auto-complete - type a 's' and it move to the start of the s's, type a w and 
Swahili   is the only word on the list that matches s is selected. I will 
have to test it.


 Bruce

David
-- 
---
David N. Wilson
Co-Project Lead for the Bibliographic 
OpenOffice Project
http://bibliographic.openoffice.org

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [dev-biblio] Re: Re: embedded references/functional requirements wiki page

2006-04-05 Thread David Wilson
On Thursday 06 April 2006 4:24 am, Matthias Steffens wrote:
 On Wed, 5-Apr-2006 10:27 -0400, Bruce D'Arcus wrote:


 Yes, that's a very nice feature. However, when I'm writing a paper, 95%
 of the cited references do already exist in my bibliographic database
 and I want to use these (and not a copy from somewhere else) since I
 know that I've verified my own entries for correctness (multiple
 times). The same cannot be said for any remotely fetched data and I'd
 need to check each entry for correctness. 

(If you wonder why I make late entries into some of the discussions - it's 
because I am not up a 2:30 am)

Yes I agree, we can not assume that library catalogues are correct - even the 
sainted US LOC. I was told recently the a common library cataloguing 
practice, and one used my university,  is that when a new book comes in to be 
catalogue, the cataloguer, does a world-wide library search and copies the 
first cataloguing entry found. Now if they all do this all the libraries have 
copies of the very first cataloguing entry produced for that book by X from 
library Y, and X may not be all the skilled at writing them because he or she 
mostly spends their time copying other libraries' efforts.
 
This also partly explains why book on the same topics are not always together 
on the shelves.

Also the libraries I have used often have problems collecting  the books of 
one author under the same author listing. So you have books by 

Smith Fred, S
Smith Fred, S  (1934- )
Smith Fred, S  (1934-1987)

(Which will look poor in your Dissertation, and be even worse if you assumed 
they were different people)

So the point is that collecting internet cataloguing data will not be a magic 
corrector of data. Useful, but it will still need checking by the user.

David
-- 
---
David N. Wilson
Co-Project Lead for the Bibliographic 
OpenOffice Project
http://bibliographic.openoffice.org

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [dev-biblio] Minimal Target

2006-04-04 Thread David Wilson
On Wednesday 05 April 2006 1:02 pm, Bruce D'Arcus wrote:


  Also CiteProc is working right now using data stored in an eXist xml
  database.
  The quickest way to build something that works would be to build a
  xforms
  based browser to work with eXist and a function to inset the selected
  citation into Writer.
 
  I know nothing about Xforms.  Is this something that could be built,
  as it were, from within OOo?  Or are you talking about a separate
  application?

 OOo has built in XForms support in 2.0. The problem is it's really
 designed for end users.

I was actually thinking of the bibliographic browser forms already in the 
eXist sample demos. 

In OOo the Base forms are easy to build, but you need to do OOo Basic 
programming to set up more advanced features like tabbed panels and probably 
to do complex multi-table updates.

You can use Xforms in OOo but it is harder to use than Base forms which are of 
the point and click type, to link database fields to form fields.

In OOo Xforms you have to construct your own Xpath statements for the form 
fields. Which for me is like hard programming.

These are probably only suitable for early and quick prototyping .

 Bruce

 -
 To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

-- 
---
David N. Wilson
Co-Project Lead for the Bibliographic 
OpenOffice Project
http://bibliographic.openoffice.org

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [dev-biblio] embedded references/functional requirements wiki page

2006-04-04 Thread David Wilson
On Wednesday 05 April 2006 6:40 am, Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
 On Apr 4, 2006, at 3:54 PM, Matt Price wrote:
  comment:  seems to me that it might be a good idea to start some of the
  actual deletion/consolidation suggested by Bruce or others.  WHile
  fairly exhaustive, the document is currently pretty hard to follow and
  very long.

 Actually, I'd like to start by suggesting we scrap the current
 requirements document and start over with the basics.  

You are probably right.
I will copy it and take it off.



 This is in part 
 because the existing document is so big that it's very difficult to
 disentangle. Perhaps once we have a solid core, we can then go back and
 look through the current version and add stuff back in where
 appropriate.

-- 
---
David N. Wilson
Co-Project Lead for the Bibliographic 
OpenOffice Project
http://bibliographic.openoffice.org

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [dev-biblio] Re: [users-biblio] Work documents on the wiki.

2006-04-03 Thread David Wilson
On Friday 31 March 2006 9:41 am, Matt Price wrote:

Snip 
 Alternatively, would it make most sense to design the bibliographic
 database next -- since there are so few C coders here, but many people
 with some database experience?

Accepting Matt's good idea I have created a Bibliographic Database wiki page 
dealing with database design issues and the next development steps.

http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Bibliographic_Database

Also I have set up an new 'Bibliographic Index' page as a front page to our 
stuff on the wiki

http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Bibliographic_Project

Next I will link the Database tasks to the development task list.


David
---
David N. Wilson
Co-Project Lead for the Bibliographic 
OpenOffice Project
http://bibliographic.openoffice.org

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [dev-biblio] Re: [users-biblio] Work documents on the wiki.

2006-03-30 Thread David Wilson
On Friday 31 March 2006 9:41 am, Matt Price wrote:
 Hi David,


 Alternatively, would it make most sense to design the bibliographic
 database next --
Yes that is a task that could be started now. 

I notice I have not included the database design / build task on the 
Developers page. 
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Bibliographic_Project's_Developer_Page

I will add it in.  

 since there are so few C coders here, but many people 
 with some database experience?


 Hopefully the DB expert Bruce mentioned will help us through the design 
process.  

 I'm just thinking that if we (I know the first person is a bit iffy
 here, as I'm hardly active) can start parcelling the project up a bit
 better, we might find that there are a fair number of bits that non-C
 programmers can work on.
I am open to suggestions on how to do this. I have had list of tasks up on the 
web site for some years - with not many takers. But we also need to develop 
and document the tasks much better than we have so that people can assess 
what they would be getting themselves into. 

CPH is doing some good work documenting the biblio coding.


 Matt

 -
 To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

-- 
---
David N. Wilson
Co-Project Lead for the Bibliographic 
OpenOffice Project
http://bibliographic.openoffice.org

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [dev-biblio] Bibliographic Table processing

2006-03-28 Thread David Wilson
On Monday 27 March 2006 12:15 am, Bruce D'Arcus wrote:

Snip 

 Anyway, here's the relevant page:

 http://api.openoffice.org/docs/common/ref/com/sun/star/text/
 BibliographyDataField.html

 OK, good news:

 There is, in fact, a reference class. It's very limited, just being a
 series of key/values*, but at least it's there. I would hope that the
 current ODF TC discussions to enhance metadata support might end up
 with a better, more generic, mechanism for this, but that's not
 strictly necessary.


The more useful definition is the higher level - /FieldMaster/Bibliography 
which specifies the attributes of the Bibliography (reference table).

http://api.openoffice.org/docs/common/ref/com/sun/star/text/FieldMaster/Bibliography.html

Now this Service DOES currently hold the settings for the display of citations 
such as the setting for numbered citations and the use of and type of 
brackets used around the citation. It also contains attributes relating to 
the generation of the bibliography  SortKeys, SortAlgorithm, 
IsSortedByPosition.

(I have a detailed reference to the OOo bibliographic software modules at 
http://bibliographic.openoffice.org/implementation.html)

First the Bibliography service needs to separate attributes of citations, and 
attributes of the Bibliography.

Then, one point of view might be, that  all it really only needs to do is to 
collect the formated bibliography text from Citeproc formating engine and 
insert it into the document. It would also maintain some other user 
selectable attributes such  as selecting 'Allow manual editing' or 'preserve 
from editing' . Do we need to do more than that ? 

Is there any advantage in building a structure within the document that 
represents the structure of the bibliography. The only practical use I can 
see for this would be if the Bibliography Table needed to contained links to 
the underlying reference data, so that if you right click on a entry in the 
table you could select an option to edit the reference data that was used to 
build it. Or right click on the author name in the table and bring up author 
details. But is this worth doing ?  I am not sure it is. Users would be able 
to access the same data via the citations in the document. It is easier to 
have just dumb formated text. 

I have presented a view of the possible interaction at 
http://bibliographic.openoffice.org/components.html, in the diagram shown at 
the bottom of the page,  I suggested that the writer bibliography service 
would pass to Citeproc the style name and the list of reference Ids that are 
to be used in generating the reference table, along with any other user 
setting that may be available such as sorting options.

Of course we need input from the Writer team about how they see things. 
 
David

-- 
---
David N. Wilson
Co-Project Lead for the Bibliographic 
OpenOffice Project
http://bibliographic.openoffice.org

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [dev-biblio] Bibliographic Table processing

2006-03-27 Thread David Wilson
On Monday 27 March 2006 12:15 am, Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
snip .
 Bad news:

 I might be wrong, but it seems that the current design assumes one

 would always have a bibliography. The description, for example, says:

  These values define parts of bibliographic data. They are used to
  create a bibliography in a text document.


It is not the case that a document has to have bibliography, the Bibliography 
xml structure is only inserted in a document when you do the 

Insert-'Indexes and Tables'-'Indexes and 
Tables'-tab=Index/Table:type=Bibliography

Inserting citations does not create it. (I have just tested this)

The quote you give looks like something so imprecise I might have written it.

I assume to refers to the  Bibliography xml structure which defines the 
Bibliographic Tables' data fields, their order and their character formating 
and punctuation between the fields. This structure is only indirectly 
associated with bibliographic entries (citations) inserted in the document - 
in that it refers to the same field names. But it is not used or needed in 
the citation entry process.

David






-- 
---
David N. Wilson
Co-Project Lead for the Bibliographic 
OpenOffice Project
http://bibliographic.openoffice.org

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [dev-biblio] Some citation questions

2006-03-25 Thread David Wilson
First I would like to express my gratitude to CPHennessy for putting in such 
an effort under difficult circumstance, not helped much by my documentation.

On Sunday 26 March 2006 2:33 am, CPHennessy wrote:

  In the new approach, those five citations each point to the same --
  single -- metadata record, which is moved out of the content file into
  its own dedicated file.

 Ah, now this was not clear to me. But the example docs you gave me did
 not do this. I presume that this was to make life a bit easier for me. It
 has but it left a gap in my understanding which you have now partially
 filled.



I had tried explain the proposed document structure in 


http://bibliographic.openoffice.org/enhanced-save-package-description.html
and 

http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Bibliographic_Document_XML_Format 
which are linked from the Developer's wiki page
 
( 
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Bibliographic_Project's_Developer_Page 
). 

These two pages, which I now see, the poor reader would have had to examine 
both carefully and some-how integrate in order to get the full picture, try 
to show how the current bibliographic and the proposed writer document 
structure which is stored in the content.xml file. It also tries to show one 
of the major changes which is is to move the reference details out of 
content.xml to a new document in the save package, which I have called 
biblio-data.xml. A suggested format for that file is shown on the 
'enhanced-save-package-description.html' wiki page.

I hope this and the changes I will make to the wiki pages today will make it 
much clearer.

regards

David









 

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [dev-biblio] Some citation questions

2006-03-25 Thread David Wilson
On Sunday 26 March 2006 2:21 am, Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
 On Mar 25, 2006, at 9:09 AM, CPHennessy wrote:

  2 - (is a consequence of the above or make the decision for us) can one
  citation be displayed in several ways in the same document at the same
  time ?
There is the case where some styles have a first (more detailed) and 
subsequent (less detailed) format for citations. 

David
-- 
---
David N. Wilson
Co-Project Lead for the Bibliographic 
OpenOffice Project
http://bibliographic.openoffice.org

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



[dev-biblio] Developer Article Competition

2006-03-22 Thread David Wilson
Hi,

You may have noticed OpenOffice.org  is a running competition for developer  
articles. These are articles written to help developers working on  
OOo. The award sum is $750 USD. The official announcement of the competition 
is below.

---
All,

OpenOffice.org, with the support of Team OpenOffice.org e.V. and
extra sponsorship from Sun Microsystems, announces the Developer
Contest. The goal of the developer contest is to generate more
developer documentation. We are also interested in promoting
OpenOffice.org to developers at the same time.

The current deadline is 31 March 2006. Each month, a new deadline
will be set for the end of that month.

As part of the contest, developers are asked to write articles about
developer topics, such as porting, add-on and filter development
(e.g. new wizards, Calc functions, chart types, etc.), bug fixing,
etc. Every month a committee will pick the best article from the pool
of submitted articles. Articles that did not initially win will stay
in the pool, so that they can still win later.

Detailed rules can be found here:
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/
OpenOffice.org_Developer_Article_Contest

(http://tinyurl.com/kptj3)

The developer contest team wishes all participating developers and
writers good luck! We look forward to receiving the first articles.

Best regards,

The OpenOffice.org Developer Contest Team

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



[dev-biblio] tcluno and the YAZ internet search client.

2006-01-30 Thread David Wilson

The tcluno team has announced the release 0.2 of tcluno. Tcluno is a set of 
Tcl packages, which provide acccess to OpenOffice.org using 
the urp socket interface. One part of the packages (unospection) allows 
interactive introspection and driving of a running OpenOffice.org process 
(server).

This may be of interest to a Bibliographic hacker because the YAZ toolkit has  
a demonstration client program called IRTCL that can perform the internet 
reference searches using the Z39.50. IRTCL is writen in tcl/tk.  It does 
everything but save or export the results !

However, using OOo tcluno it should be moderately easy to add the code to save 
the internet search results back to the OOo bibliographic database.

david
-- 
---
David N. Wilson
Co-Project Lead for the Bibliographic 
OpenOffice Project
http://bibliographic.openoffice.org

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [dev-biblio] an example of a odt file with the new citation xml

2006-01-04 Thread David Wilson
On Monday 02 January 2006 3:09 am, CPHennessy wrote:
 Hi,
 Does anyone have an example file (i.e. the contents.xml and others with
 the right format), for the new citation. I want a complete file as it is
 not clear to me where the citation xml actually sits in the ODT file and
 hence it is hard for me to see where the OOo needs to be changed to parse
 the relevant information.

I have made an attempt at producing a example .odt file with the proposed 
citation changes. it is package as a zip file - 
http://bibliographic.openoffice.org/files/documents/124/3147/bib-enhanced.zip

I have also tried to show a side by side example of the old and new  
bibliographic data formats. at 
http://bibliographic.openoffice.org/enhanced-save-package-description.html

Please understand I know very little about the OOo XML document format and I 
have made several guesses about what to do. So I would appreciated advice and 
suggestions and how to improve and correct these documents. I will place the 
content.xml on the wiki site so others can make corrections. 

For these examples, for clarity and simplicity I have replaced the old 
bibliographic data with the new enahancements. I reality we may need to keep 
both sets in the file for backwards compatibility.


David




-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [dev-biblio] an example of a odt file with the new citation xml

2006-01-01 Thread David Wilson
On Monday 02 January 2006 3:09 am, CPHennessy wrote:
 Hi,
 Does anyone have an example file (i.e. the contents.xml and others with
 the right format), for the new citation. I want a complete file as it is
 not clear to me where the citation xml actually sits in the ODT file and
 hence it is hard for me to see where the OOo needs to be changed to parse
 the relevant information.

We have not tried to put together a sample ODT in the proposed format. I will 
have a go at it.

David
-- 
---
David N. Wilson
Co-Project Lead for the Bibliographic 
OpenOffice Project
http://bibliographic.openoffice.org

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



[dev-biblio] Bibliographic Project announces its development plans

2005-12-16 Thread David Wilson
The OOo Bibliographic Project (OOoBib) is pleased to announce the release of 
its development plans. The plans are available at 
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/User_talk:Dnw . We have placed our 
plans on the wiki site as we hope developers will contribute by adding 
information to assist others and to add detail to the plans.

Our current objective is to design and build OOoBib version 0.1, which will 
contain the most basic functions for an usable bibliographic facility with: 

1.bibliographic formatting support for: 
   * complex features required of commonly used citation styles like APA and  
      Chicago 
   * automatically switching between potentially radically different citation 
     styles (ie. footnote to in-text) 
2.a data model that can support a broader range of reference types 
3.integration with remote databases 

We are, in fact ready to go with the first task in that plan which is to 
modify the Writer document-read and document-save modules to support the new 
OpenDocument enhanced citation format, and to implement the citation and 
bibliography changes to the OOo Writer save file (in Open Document format) 
accepted by the OpenDocument Technical Committee. 

OOoBib offers many interesting opportunities for developers to become involved 
with a range of cutting edge technologies, covering: Internet, metadata, 
databases, and XML XSLT and OpenOffice. 

Please consider if you would like to help us in the development of this 
exiting project. We especially need the assistance of a C++ programmer to 
implement the first essential changes to Writer. When these basic changes are 
in place we can proceed with application prototyping in OOo Basic, Java or 
Python. When we have designed, built and tested the prototypes and they have 
been accepted by the OOo community we intend to rebuild them in C++ so that 
they can become part of the core OpenOffice application. 


-- 
---
David N. Wilson
Co-Project Lead for the Bibliographic 
OpenOffice Project
http://bibliographic.openoffice.org

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [dev-biblio] wiki updates

2005-12-13 Thread David Wilson
On Wednesday 14 December 2005 11:20 am, CPHennessy wrote:
 On Sat December 10 2005 18:50, Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
  On 12/10/05, CPHennessy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
   Hi Bruce,
Nice work. Can you also update it to add something relevant to my
   questions/suggestions :
 
  Yes, forgot to mention that we're working on the second one.  I think
  I addressed your first point.  If not, tell me what I'm missing.

 Hi Bruce,
  There seems to be a flowchart missing in section Backwards and Forwards
 Compatability -  A suggested approach is illustrated in this flowchart.
 

Thanks,

The link seems to have got lost, I have replaced it.

David
-- 
---
David N. Wilson
Co-Project Lead for the Bibliographic 
OpenOffice Project
http://bibliographic.openoffice.org

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [dev-biblio] Almost ready to go ! Draft new development plans

2005-12-08 Thread David Wilson
Bruce

I have busy with other things including Christmas shopping, to this has been a 
bit slow in coming.

I have update the http://bibliographic.openoffice.org/developer1.html page and  
hope I have amended as to your suggestions.

I will try to get it on the Wiki site tomorrow.

David


On Monday 05 December 2005 3:39 pm, Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
 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-citation1/text:note-citation
text:note-body
  text:p text:style-name=FootnotePeter 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]

-- 
---
David N. Wilson
Co-Project Lead for the Bibliographic 
OpenOffice Project
http://bibliographic.openoffice.org

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [dev-biblio] Draft new development plans on Wiki

2005-12-05 Thread David Wilson
 CPHennessy,

Thanks for the suggestion I have put the text from the developer page 
at 
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/User_talk:Dnw for people to modify.

I have not yet made the changes suggested by Bruce and others yet. I will get 
to them soon. I have had computer troubles, which I have almost fixed.

Regards



On Monday 05 December 2005 11:36 am, CPHennessy wrote:
 On Sun December 4 2005 21:40, Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
  On Dec 4, 2005, at 4:20 PM, David Wilson wrote:
   On Monday 05 December 2005 12:06 am, Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
   Two quick things David:
  
   1)  I think it'd be helpful to have these sorts of documents as a
   wiki,
   so it's easier and quicker to revise.  Do we have that available to
   us?
  
   Yes, we have the 'forum' area. I have put my message there and could
   try to
   use it for the discussion.
  
   http://bibliographic.openoffice.org/servlets/ForumMessageList?forumID=5
 
  Hmm ... a forum is not a wiki.  The idea is to allow direct editing of
  the document.
 
  I've been using this recently in couple of related contexts, and it's
  convenient.  Otherwise, every little edit has to go through you.

 Maybe you could use the OOo wiki at
 http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Main_Page

-- 
---
David N. Wilson
Co-Project Lead for the Bibliographic 
OpenOffice Project
http://bibliographic.openoffice.org

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [dev-biblio] take 1 on CSL mods

2005-11-25 Thread David Wilson


I think the answer might be to remove the sorting from the CLS process. I will 
explain -

I have been looking at my style guide again. They suggest an example with 
several levels of Grouping and sorting: For example -
==
Primary Sources

Published Sources
cited works sorted by name, date

Unpublished Sources
 
cited works sorted by name, date

Secondary Sources 

cited works sorted by name, date

=
The style guide says about sorting (by name or date) ‘use what is most 
useful”.

In any of these groups the user should be able to select the sort order name, 
date / date, name etc. And as Martha suggested there could be an arbitrary 
number and levels of headings, and sorting options. (Published / Un-published 
could be sorted based on record content tests ie ' If Publisher Name exists 
then work is a member of 'Published'.  If NOT 'Published' then work is a 
member of 'Unpublished'.)

Also I have suggested before we need a mechanism to allow to manually 
over-ride the sorting order As Martha has said fully automatic systems drive 
you crazy. 

For setting up the bibliography table I suggest we have a GUI that allows the 
user to set Heading Groups and table sorting options and “pre-sorting rules”. 
For pre-sorting to operate each bibliographic record would have a name-sort 
field which the sort-pre-processing would convert the name to the sort-name. 
There would be a bib table Preview panel to check the operation of each user 
intervention.

An example of special sorting rules for names: how to sort ‘Mujahid Usamah Bin 
Ladin’ ; Bin Ladin is the family name but ‘Bin’ should always ignored in 
sorting arabic names, and the name would be grouped in the ‘L’s.)” or the 
generally known all 'Mc' or 'Mc ' are replaced with 'Mac'.  Also you may want 
to Anglicise the names by replace all the umlauts or accents with the 
standard unaccented character. There would be a standard set of pre-sort 
rules but the user could add extra rules. These could be rules to fix Chinese 
– English transliteration problems ie change all 'Mao Tse Tung' to 'Mao 
Zedung'. To fix the situation where the rules do not seem to work, force the 
sorting order - For record ID 34334453 sort-name ='smith, d. h.

So how would this interact with the CiteProc formatting engine ? The 
Bibliographic Table GUI would send a list of citation ID's to CiteProc, and 
CiteProc would return the formatted citation strings to the selected style. 
The sort order does not matter at this point. Through the GUI process the 
pre-sort rules populate the sort-name fields and the Headings are defined. 
When the user has finished the bib table setup and pressed the OK button to 
generate the table. The GUI process could return to Citeproc the sorted list 
of citation Ids along with the Headings. ie

Bib Heading level1='Primary Sources', CiteIds=1234, 13445, 234234, 234234, 
234234
Bib Heading level2='Published Sources' CiteIds= 45234,23423,2344,3566,576567,
Bib Heading level2='Unpublished Sources' CiteIds= 
576567,56758,3245,123,234,4223,8645
Bib Heading level1='Secondary Sources' CiteIds= 463456923, 238492, 2348974, 
088776

This should be easier to work with.

Regarding Heading groups. I think that user defined groups can be just 
assigned to the cited works in a document. If a user then assigns both  
'Primary Sources' and 'Secondary Source' to work then it will appear in both 
lists.  There group names could be carried over from a user Bibliographic 
databases but need to customisable for each document, as what is a  'Primary 
Sources' for one  document could be a  'Secondary Source' for an other.

How does this sound ?

David

On Thursday 24 November 2005 5:14 am, Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
 OK, here's the outline of the current draft, where I'm trying to
 incorporate Johan's earlier comments with my interest in solving the
 grouping issue.  Comments inline:

content
  names and-as=and/
  dates
 !-- for now, keep the existing approach --
months
  month/month
/months
  /dates
  locators
 !-- make all of these more compact and consistent; still could remove
 all the wrappers here (locators, terms, etc.), but am not sure about
 that --
locator type=page renderas-single=p renderas-multiple=pp/
  /locators
  terms
genres
  genre type=letter renderas=letter/
/genres
media
  medium type=CD renderas=CD/
/media
  /terms
 !-- move the prefix and suffix elements to attributes per previous
 discussion; it has limitations, but is more compact; easier to port to
 OpenDocument --
  citation delimiter=; prefix=( suffix=)
multiple-authors /
layout
  creator/creator
/layout
  /citation
  bibliography
groups
 !-- the new grouping structure; logic is as follows:

 we have two options to group by: creator and named group 

Re: [dev-biblio] configuring grouping

2005-11-20 Thread David Wilson
On Monday 21 November 2005 3:05 am, Bruce D'Arcus wrote:

I am still considering the other points but I can make a comment on this.

 3)  Primary and secondary sources.  This is a tricky one, as David has
 made the argument one would need to assign groups in this case.  I am
 assuming the formatter can have some generic logic to handle this.
 E.g., primary sources do not have publishers, and are not articles?

There is really no way to automaticly separate the primary and secondary 
sources. This is because the categories Primary and secondary are in relation 
to the topic. In my History thesis on Early Irish Sagas, the early saga texts 
were the Primary source to the topic. (Note: these were published texts.) 
Other peoples commentary on the work were secondary. But if the topic was 
'The History of Commentary on the  Early Irish Sagas' then much of what was 
secondary source material in the first paper becomes the primary material for 
the second paper. Thus topic dependent.

For my thesis, if I had been able to read Old Irish and had consulted the 
original unpublished manuscripts then these would have been the primary 
sources, not the published translations I did rely on.

I have now just realised that this means that not only do users need to be 
able to specify the groupings for the bibliography  (primary and secondary, 
and any others) but that user needs to be able to specify which group the 
citation belongs to for each paper!

Sorry Bruce this seems to make a bit more difficult.

David


-- 
---
David N. Wilson
Co-Project Lead for the Bibliographic 
OpenOffice Project
http://bibliographic.openoffice.org

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [dev-biblio] configuring grouping

2005-11-20 Thread David Wilson
On Monday 21 November 2005 9:03 am, Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
 On Nov 20, 2005, at 4:47 PM, David Wilson wrote:
  I have now just realised that this means that not only do users need
  to be
  able to specify the groupings for the bibliography  (primary and
  secondary,
  and any others) but that user needs to be able to specify which group
  the
  citation belongs to for each paper!

 Not following here.  Can you explain?
I have not put this well. I mean not to assign a group at each citation 
(mention of the work in the document) but for the each work cited in the 
document. ie. For this document this work is Primary Source (or other group).


  Sorry Bruce this seems to make a bit more difficult.

 Crap!


 OK, but let's see if we can make this as simple as possible. I have
 learned through working on citeproc and csl that often one can find
 simple solutions to what at first seem like difficult problems.

 On first glance, you are telling me that we must force users to assign
 each citation to a group (if they need this sort of formatting at
 least), and therefore the internal coding must be able to store this
 (it cannot yet in the OD proposal).  
The group belongs to the Cited work not per citation of the work. 
So the grouping would be stored with the bibliographic detail file in the save 
files, not in the citation field inserted in the document.
 I know as a user that I'd rather 
 not have to do that, so perhaps we can figure out some other way.  Am
 not sure how, mind you!
Easy, have a default group. For people who do not need sorting this can be a 
Default (no heading) group. For most of my History papers 80-90% of the cited 
works were Secondary (so that would the default for me) Then, either when 
adding cited works or latter when finishing the paper assign the few Primary 
sources.


 If we can't, then I guess my proposed solution would be similar; we'd
 just need to add a group attribute to the citation coding.

 Bruce


 -
 To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

-- 
---
David N. Wilson
Co-Project Lead for the Bibliographic 
OpenOffice Project
http://bibliographic.openoffice.org

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [dev-biblio] metadata update

2005-11-12 Thread David Wilson
On Sunday 13 November 2005 4:07 am, Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
 Just a quick update:

 Long story here, but the short take-home point is that I'll be leading
 an effort -- hosted by the new OpenDocument Fellowship -- to design a
 proposal to significantly enhance metadata support in OpenDocument.
 That proposal will formalize the ideas I laid out here:

 Bruce

This is great news - indicative of the growing support for Bruce's innovative 
approach to  metadata support in OpenDocument - which is central to the 
sucesss of our bibliographic project.

For those who have not yet come across it yet a mp3 is available of the talk 
Bruce was recently invited to give to the Canadian library technology 
conference Access 2005. His talk was -

Bridging Worlds: Library IT and Free Software

Presents ongoing work in improving open standards and software for students 
and researchers by exploiting innovations in library-oriented technology and 
trends in the free software community. Focuses in particular on the 
OpenOffice bibliographic project and related work.

You can down load the mp3 
http://access2005.library.ualberta.ca/presentations/podcasts/darcus.mp3

and the slides 
http://www.users.muohio.edu/darcusb/talks/biblio/Access2005.html

Also the OpenDocument Fellowship can be found at -

http://opendocumentfellowship.org/Main/HomePage

regards

David




 -
 To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

-- 
---
David N. Wilson
Co-Project Lead for the Bibliographic 
OpenOffice Project
http://bibliographic.openoffice.org

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [dev-biblio] Update

2005-11-12 Thread David Wilson
Edward,

Welcome to our project, I am sure you will be be able to find 
some 
interesting way to use your programming skills to help us. Please keep in 
touch.

David



On Sunday 13 November 2005 8:32 am, Edward Summers wrote:
 On Nov 12, 2005, at 3:21 PM, David Wilson wrote:
  My impression is that they support, in principle, our approach
  and goals. We have to wait and see what resources can be scheduled
  for this
  work and when.

 Wow, this is great news. I'm a new subscriber to the dev list. I got
 interested by following Bruce's work for close to a year. Bruce
 actually asked me to send a quick introduction.

 I'm a software developer at Follett Corporation (a book distributor
 and library software company). I am currently working as a Java
 programmer but also have experience programming in Python, Ruby and
 Perl.  A long time ago in a galaxy far far away I got an MLS and
 worked in academic libraries before deciding to pursue my life long
 interest in computers.

 At any rate, I'd like to contribute programming skills to this
 project. Hopefully I'll find the time to get involved as things
 progress.

 Ed Summers
 aim: inkdroid
 yahoo: inkdroid
 jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 http://www.inkdroid.org ; http://www.textualize.com

 -
 To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

-- 
---
David N. Wilson
Co-Project Lead for the Bibliographic 
OpenOffice Project
http://bibliographic.openoffice.org

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [dev-biblio] Bibshare

2005-11-08 Thread David Wilson
Matej,

Thanks for the suggestion, I have not come across Bibshare 
before. I will 
add a reference to it to the biblio-sw web page.


David


On Monday 07 November 2005 2:14 am, Matej Cepl wrote:
 Hi,

 just to ask for adding another bibliographic project to the list on
 http://bibliographic.openoffice.org/biblio-sw.html. It is called Bibshare
 and originally it was the project how to make Word work with BibTeX files
 http://www.acm.org/crossroads/xrds6-4/bibword.html, but later (with
 support of Microsoft Research!) it developed into something much more
 resembling current Bruce's thoughts of the remote database driven
 references http://bibshare.dsic.upv.es/. Unfortunately, I haven't used it
 (not having Windows here) and copyright status of the thing is unknown
 (especially, suspicious if M$ Research was involved; but, originally they
 provided source code).

 Best,

 Matěj

-- 
---
David N. Wilson
Co-Project Lead for the Bibliographic 
OpenOffice Project
http://bibliographic.openoffice.org

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



[dev-biblio] Document type lists and document options

2005-05-21 Thread David Wilson
Some of the problems we have been dealing with the question of mapping the 
standard document types to MODS and how to design a user interface to 
collect reference data. I have thinking about how the other Bibliographic 
applications use  standard document types and I think we should try a 
different approach for our GUI. Or at least give the users an option to use a 
different approach. So I offer these ideas for discussion.

OpenOffice currently supports only the following types - article, book, 
booklet, conference, custom1, custom2, custom3, custom4, custom5, email, 
inbook, incollection, inproceedings, journal, manual, mastersthesis, misc, 
phdthesis, proceedings, techreport, unpublished, www. This is similar to 
Bibtex. 

Most of the bibliographic packages I have seen start with the process of 
First select your document type, ... This implies that, before you start, 
you fully understand the document types, what distinguishes them and what the 
bibliographic formatting consequences are or selecting say inbook, as against 
incollection. What is the difference in format between a book and booklet 
reference ? If you have Honours dissertation is it the same as 
mastersthesis ?

This process very confusing for a beginner and it still confuses me. Also, 
this list presumes that the full range of bibliographic field selection and 
ordering is defined by this list, but this is not the case. To provide one 
example - If a work is a reprint version of an old well known edition  the 
publication details of the original edition may need to cited as well. I had 
several of this type in my thesis. If we supported this option with the same 
approach, we would have make new types  reprinted Books,  reprinted  
Articles,  reprinted  Journals,  reprinted  phdthesis etc.

Also we do not want the situation where just because a user has entered the 
original publication details that this appears automatically in the 
bibliography. This should be a user option -

Store original Publication details  y/n
Display original Publication details y/n

I suggest a more flexible approach  to the user interface, which could also 
support a wizard question walk though approach to properly define the 
bibliographic attributes. 

Rather than have fixed GUI panel design for each of the supported document 
types we have either only one (or several more general panels) with more 
options. I know that this can result in very large and confusing forms. But I 
envisage something flexible and dynamic.

For example the Form could have Radio buttons -

The work has -
Author(s)   [_] (or is unknown) [_]
Editor(s)[_]
Compiler(s)   [_]
Translator(s)  [_]

The Work is  -
Part of series  [_]
Part of a named edition  [_]
A reprint  [_]
Part of a collection with works by other authors  [_]

And the text entry fields (or a sub-form to collect names) would only appear 
when the associated button was selected. (I have seen this in web forms)

I have not fully worked this out but the type of questions / options would 
include the following  -

Physical character
Audio - talk, music, ...
Video - film, documentary ...
WWW pages
Paper - booklet , book, pamphlet, journal, newspaper, magazine, map, ...

Authorship  The work has one or more authors? has Compiler(s) or  Editor(s) 
? 
Is the work a translation ?

Publisher  Publisher of this work, If it is a re-published (reprint)  the 
publication details of the original edition as well. 

UnPublished  The from in which the work has been referenced ie (Photocopied) 

Collections - Does the work have sections with different authors? (Collection 
title name, Editor(s) / Compiler(s),  publisher,  and / or publishing agency, 
page range of section referred to.) 

Series  Is the work part of a series or collection ? Is the series well 
known 
enough for the series name to be given prominence ? (There may be a different 
field order if this is the case). (Series name, Editor(s) publisher,  and / 
or publishing agency)

Named Edition  Is the work part of a Named Edition  ?  (Edition name)

Conferences - If the work is an article, report or paper from a the published 
proceedings of a conference, the conference details are needed (conference 
title, place, date).

Summary 

The point I am trying to get to is that the bibliography format should be 
generated from the information that the user has provided about the work, 
rather than from the user first have to make a selection from a document type 
list that is difficulty to fully understand and does not satisfy all the 
variation found. For exporting the data some program logic will have to find 
a best fit to a document type list. But we should not force the user to deal 
with this.

There are many bibliographic details that can be collected when we look 
through the style guides. We could collect a list of possible options and 
work out how to best to present these to the users. We should think about a 
new Bibliographic GUI paradigm for OpenOffice.


Re: [dev-biblio] OO's bibliography project - request.

2005-04-25 Thread David Wilson
Arron,

Sorry for the delay in getting to your question on the 
the list, I am the 
list moderator and I was a way for a few days.

Your frustrations with OOo's bibliographic features are shared by the members 
of this list. 

I do not have Endnote so you will need advise us as to what  
Harvard_Curtin_2005 requires. Could you provide some details of the 
specification.

What can be done with the current form of OOo is customise the bibliographic 
table albeit  (within is own set of limitations) and save that document as a 
template. As you are probably aware the current bibliographic citation 
support is for intext citation only and it is up to the user to compose the 
citation string called the 'Short name' ie dwilson:2005 manually. It would 
be possible to write a macro to regenerate these citations strings to a set 
of rules for a single style (but running the macro would be another manual 
operation). There is still the dreadful data entry form, although this can be 
augmented by some 3rd party java based bibliographic programs such as B3 
which can share a bibliographic database with OOo. How close would this get 
to your minimum requirements ?

The 'OO style sheet implementation' which we are developing cannot yet be run 
within OOo and it will require changes to the WP before it can. We hope this 
work will start later this year, but unfortunately we cannot tell you when it 
might be available, it is unlikely to be this year, and we all hope that it 
will be next year.
 
Thanks for your offer of assistance for testing, we hope we can offer some 
soon.

Is there any chance of the Curtain IT department setting some OOo 
Bibliographic development task as a class project ? Some work has been done 
on this at Kent State Uni see http://www.cs.kent.edu/~capstone/


regards

David Wilson

On Friday 22 April 2005 4:38 pm, Arron Arntzen wrote:
 Hi Andreas Martens (at sun.com)
 dev@bibliographic.openoffice.org

 I am a lecturer and unit controller at Curtin University in Western
 Australia. Curtin has 32 campuses, mostly overseas.

 I have been using OO for all my own work since late beta's. I look like
 having input and some control over the content of the IS100 unit (i.e.
 1st year intro to IS) next semester (July 2005).

 The only reason I cannot suggest to Curtin they throw out MSWord is the
 lack of output formatting in OO's bibliography. The OO style sheet
 implementation is exactly what I wish to teach the students, rather than
 the botched mess (my professional opinion, restated politely) provided
 in MSWord.

 To oversimplify, I am torn between giving the students an efficient way
 of creating their assignments and having poor referencing, or an
 inefficient way of producing their work and having good referencing.

 Given Curtin's strict policy on referencing, the former is not actually
 an option (yet...). This is also costing the students in my unit a
 significant increase in workload, and I would love to correct the
 problem.

 I am enclosing the three Endnote output styles from the University's
 website. The School of IS uses the Harvard_Curtin_2005.ens style sheet.
 Other Curtin Schools somewhere presumably use the other ones.

 If your team could provide a version of the Harvard_Curtin_2005.ens I
 could use in OO, there is a high probability I could migrate the
 students to at least OO Writer and Impress in late July. If not, Summer
 School in December, or next year etc..

 I am quite happy to assist in testing the output, as I am currently
 doing most of my Curtin work in OO, then transferring to Word to run
 Endnote for the referencing. If you send me an alpha version, I have
 three or four guinea pig computers I can trash at will for testing.

 If I can be of any further assistance, please feel free to contact me.


 Cheers


 Arron Arntzen
 Unit Controller
 Analysis (Problem Analysis) 150 all campuses.
 Curtin University
 Mobile (Cell): +61 423 283 474

-- 
---
David N. Wilson
Co-Project Lead for the Bibliographic 
OpenOffice Project
http://bibliographic.openoffice.org


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [dev-biblio] get the name of the literature database by StarBasic

2005-04-12 Thread David Wilson
Jorg 

Our developer page has a few bits of sample code. Whilst the literature 
database can be user-defined it has to be given the DataSource name 
Bibliography for the bibliographic functions to work with it.

I have quoted a small python routine below that reads entries from the 
bibliographic database. 

I know very little about OOo programming but the crucial bit seems to be 
setting the DataSourceName = Bibliography in 

rowset.DataSourceName = Bibliography


I hope this helps. The real experts on this question are on database list so 
try there if you need more technical assistance. The bibliographic  project 
does not have much programming skill  yet.


regards

David

==
import uno

from com.sun.star.sdb.CommandType import COMMAND

def main():

connectionString = socket,host=localhost,port=2002

url = uno:+connectionString + ;urp;StarOffice.ComponentContext

localCtx = uno.getComponentContext()
localSmgr = localCtx.ServiceManager
resolver = localSmgr.createInstanceWithContext(
com.sun.star.bridge.UnoUrlResolver, localCtx)
ctx = resolver.resolve( url )
smgr = ctx.ServiceManager

rowset =smgr.createInstanceWithContext( com.sun.star.sdb.RowSet, ctx )
rowset.DataSourceName = Bibliography
rowset.CommandType = COMMAND
rowset.Command = SELECT IDENTIFIER, AUTHOR FROM biblio

rowset.execute();

print Identifier\tAuthor

id = rowset.findColumn( IDENTIFIER )
author = rowset.findColumn( AUTHOR )
while rowset.next():
print rowset.getString( id ) + \t + 
repr( rowset.getString( author ) )


rowset.dispose();

main()

=





On Wednesday 13 April 2005 2:56 am, Jrg Schmidt wrote:
 Hello,

 I can get the names of all databases in my OOo-Application by this code:

 Sub datenquellenAnzeigen
 oDatenbankKontext = createUnoService _
   ( com.sun.star.sdb.DatabaseContext )
 aDatenquellenNamen = oDatenbankKontext.getElementNames()
 For nCounter = LBound( aDatenquellenNamen ) _
   To UBound( aDatenquellenNamen )
   oDatenquelle = oDatenbankKontext.getByName _
   ( aDatenquellenNamen(nCounter) )
   sAusgabe = sAusgabe  _
   oDatenquelle.Name  chr(13)
 Next nCounter
 msgbox sAusgabe
 End Sub

 works correctly, but my question is:
 How can i get the name of the specific database which is the current
 database for literature (by StarBasic-code)?

 What i mean is:
 On my own system the name of the literature database is Bibliography,
 but on a unknown system the name of the literature database can be
 user-defined.



 greetings

 Jrg



 -
 To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

-- 
---
David N. Wilson
Co-Project Lead for the Bibliographic 
OpenOffice Project
http://bibliographic.openoffice.org

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [dev-biblio] modified bibliographic entries - update

2005-04-05 Thread David Wilson
Jozef,

There is something you can do fix the problem, create a unique index 
for the 
identifier.

See the document 
http://bibliographic.openoffice.org/files/documents/124/1284/HOWTO-increaseFieldSizes-V1.0.sxw


for instructions. You can not create the index until you have removed the 
duplicates but it will prevent you adding new duplicates in the future.

regards


David

On Tuesday 05 April 2005 10:38 pm, Jozef Riha wrote:
 thank you very much for your quick response. this issue is utterly
 crucial to me as i am writing thesis w/ many cited sources in it.
 please, if anyone knows a workaround - except for writing w/ no mistakes
 - please let me know.

 if i was programmer i'd write it myself.. bad luck i can only do bash.

 thank you.

 cheers,

 -- joe

 On Ut, 2005-04-05 at 11:02 +0200, Matthias Basler wrote:
  Zitat von Jozef Riha [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
   say, i made a mistake in one of the items and want to do
   the correction so it gets corrected in all the occurencies.
  
   the problem here is that the other occurencies are ignored. instead,
   the corrected item is added as a new one.
 
  Dear Jozef.
 
  This problem is well-known to us. It has been requested quite freqently
  and there are already issues about it: issues 26841 and 44189.
 
  Although this issue is considered important by me and others, the current
  architecture is not build to support this notion, that is, the entries
  within one document are not linked to each other in any way.
  Unfortunately there is neither currently a solution available, nor do we
  (the members of this project) know when there will be. There are however
  workarounds, e.g. finding and editing all references with the same ID in
  the document. If you are a very good programmer, you could probably write
  a macro that does that...
 
  For OOoBib, the bibliography extension we are planning, this is already
  considered, of course.
 
  Matthias Basler
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]

  Information from NOD32 
 This message was checked by NOD32 Antivirus System for Linux Mail Server.
 http://www.nod32.com

 -
 To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

-- 
---
David N. Wilson
Co-Project Lead for the Bibliographic 
OpenOffice Project
http://bibliographic.openoffice.org


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [dev-biblio] 2.0 beta and xforms

2005-03-06 Thread David Wilson
I still have dial-up ISP link with a quota and I have used my month,s 
allocation I will have a wait for a few days before I can look at it.

David

On Monday 07 March 2005 12:37 am, Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
 Since my platform is officially unsupported (um, Sun, how about getting
 a clue on Mac support?), I've not had a chance to try it, but a public
 beta was released last week for v2 of the suite.  It includes xforms
 support.  Anyone played with it?

 Bruce


 -
 To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [dev-biblio] Initial comments on OOoBib UI Architectural Design 2.0

2005-02-26 Thread David Wilson
I have been in contact with Andreas Martens, the Project Lead for the 
word-processor project. I outlined the scope, approach and objectives of our 
project in December 2004. He has discussed them with Oliver Specht the User 
Interface project leader.  Andreas responded  -

The support of a useful bibliographic interface is on my wish list and 
we're willing to spent development effort on the Writer side of this.
What we need to know are your requirements. 

The first step should be that your project members agree on an interface which 
should be supported by the Writer. This has to be discussed with our 
developers, Oliver Specht will be responsible. After we come to an agreement 
we create a new feature issue via issuezilla. 

The (Writer-)implementation could start in March, April.. when the OOo2.0 is 
finished. So my request for you is to come up with a specification about the 
interface Writer should support. Oliver will have a look at it [to determine] 
if we could implement it technically. Then I'll organize development 
resources to do so.

So we need to develop a good understanding of the interface which writer needs 
to support and propose it to Oliver and Andreas. They are or should be aware 
of the genreal trend of our proposals and have not issued any warnings or 
reservations so far.

So is the feedback from the potential coders ensured?  We can try our best to 
keep them informed, but they will be very busy until OOo version 2.0 is 
released. 


regards

David






On Sunday 27 February 2005 8:23 am, Matthias Basler wrote:
 Hi bibliographers,

 what came into my mind when I just read Marthas comments:

 Is one of those code developers that will eventually work on OOoBib reading
 our mailing list?

 If not, we need to involve them even in early decisions, because they have
 a clearer idea what features are easy/hard to implement and what of our
 whishes for OOoBib are more or less unrealistic to code.
 Those of us with programming skills certainly have some ideas of that
 aspect, but since most of us have not worked with the actual source code of
 OOo (in C++)  we might propose things that can hardly realized within the
 current OOo framework. (I for one can only GUESS what is easy/hard/not to
 realize.) In cases like f.e. the standalone OOoBib questions they might
 tell us some side effects of our design decisions that we did not yet
 foresee.

 I simply want to avaoid that Martha builds a nice GUI concept with us ...
 and at the end the actual coders tell us they cannot do this or that in a
 reasonable time frame or cannot do other things at all.

 So, is the feedback from the potential coders ensured?

 Matthias Basler
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]

 
 This mail was sent through http://webmail.uni-jena.de

 -
 To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [dev-biblio] OOo 2.0 coming soon ... and where are we?

2005-02-25 Thread David Wilson
Matthias,

No offence is taken from fair comment and criticism. 

I do not have much time as I have to go out soon. But I want to make a brief 
comment.

I have also been frustrated that so little has been done to make even minor 
corrections and improvements to the existing bibliographic system. I have 
made many representations to many people in OpenOffice about his. My pet 
complaint, of about two years standing (issue 16268 June 2003), is that they 
would not increase the size of some the fields in the bibliographic database, 
even though a user can do this, if they know how in two minutes. But this has 
only recently fixed in version 2. And this is not even a code change but just 
values in table!

The OpenOffice developers are disciplined and focused on the development 
schedule and bibliography is scheduled to 'OOo 2.O Later'. I could not change 
the schedule. Now that the Bibliographic project has been promoted  to being 
a major project it may have more influence on the scheduling process (if we 
can work out how and when it is done).

I personally have wanted to focus on the major enhancements, but on the 
project developers web page I proposed a several projects that would assist 
users of the current system. We just have not found the volunteers to do any 
of this work. Not even to to write some HOWTO  documents about using the 
current bibliographic system!

Maybe we should go through the list of enhancements and bugs and propose a 
list sorted by priority and try to get them rescheduled.

regards

David



On Friday 25 February 2005 8:26 pm, Matthias Basler wrote:
 Hi bibliographers,

 please apologice my a bit caustically tone, but OOo2.0 will be out in some
 months. We are near the beta and I am tesing current snapshots and hecking
 / sending issues quite frequently now.

 And where are we?

 No doubt, we have made up our mind quite intensely about an architectural
 framework of the new OOoBib, have throughoutly discussed many details and
 have proposed and tested several highly intersting concepts.

 But have the users of OOo1.1.x and OOo2.0 profited by this, so far. I
 think, mainly not. :-(

 OOo2.0 will have a lot of new interesting features, some of which I believe
 are or might be highly important, such as task bars, the OOo Base
 application and - last, but not least, the new OpenDocument file format,
 which hopefully will allow for saving complex references in a future
 version of OOo.

 But OOo2.0 still has the same bibliographic functionality as OOo1.1.4 -
 which is, as many users have remarked - simly not practically usable. (OK,
 the bib. database standard field lengths have changed, but this could
 already be done manually in older versions. If I have missed out some other
 improvement, let me know.)

 Therefore I once again urgently plead, that at least some easy issues as
 f.e. issue 29910 (http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=29910)
 which concerns the insert citation dialog, get fixed before OOo2.0, just to
 let the users know we care about the current OOo versions as well.

 I believe that even if OOoBib implementation should start after OOo2.0
 release (which I really hope), it will take another year or so to get
 finished. In the meantime the users will have to use the current
 bibliographic features. So these should get improved just so much, as to be
 practically usable.

 I cannot do this: I still have no knowledge of C++ and have no
 understanding of the current OOo source code. But if anybody of you could
 get someone who has and ask him/her to fix simple things as the issue 29910
 mentioned above I would be very, very grateful.

 ---

 P.S. As a remark to David warming up the topic of a standalone app. Yes,
 I would like that too. Beeing realistic about who will code OOoBib (not one
 of us probably, and neither me in particular) the Sun developers will
 probably perfer to code it in C++ and probably (hopefully!) make OOoBib
 something like the OOoBase application in OOo2.0, that is, a standalone
 program with the OOo look and feel, which is closely interacting with the
 other components as f.e. Writer. If I am not mistaken, OOoBib could use
 exactly this architecture too.

 I know Martha wrote in the Architectural Design 2.0

  A database GUI in a floating window that for Version 1 is called
  from within an OOoWriter document.

 but I would personally stronly prefer a standalone app similar to OOo Base
 - which could then of course, without any problem, be called from within
 Writer. (Having OOoBib in a Writer window and trying to separate it later,
 would, on the contrary be much more difficult, I should think.) Anyway,
 having OOoBib as a separate component will keep the architecture flexible
 and the two programs Writer and OOoBib separate, which IMHO does improve
 maintainability. (Plus the already stated advantage that a user does not
 have to open a writer document, just to do maintenance work or to search in
 his/her database.)

 Matthias Basler

Re: [dev-biblio] funding development

2005-02-17 Thread David Wilson
On Friday 18 February 2005 02:49, Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
 On Feb 17, 2005, at 10:37 AM, Matthew Yates wrote:
  I cannot write the grant myself (I am not a developer
  and do not know a lot about the openoffice.org
  organization).  However, I do have experience writing
  grants and would be willing to give advice and/or edit
  a proposal if anyone is interested.  It is a lot of
  work to write a good one, but I think there is a
  strong possibility of getting funding.  The proposal
  can be submitted by virtually anyone in the U.S. I
  think.  It is open to universities, non-profit
  institutions, government organizations, for-profit
  institutions, and individuals.

 This is not a bad idea.  I'm in the U.S.  When's the deadline?  My
 time's really short for the next couple months.

 If I did do it, I'd need a lot of help.

 Bruce
It sort of leaves me out being in Australia but, It is worth trying. 



 -
 To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]