From: Bruce D'A. <bd...@gm...> - 2010-06-20 23:30:57
|
On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 5:51 PM, Jakob Voss <Jak...@gb...> wrote: > Hi, > > > I am a bit late on this thread but would like to add my 2cents. > > > One advantage of CSL is that its bibliographic input is not bound > to a specific data format but defined on form of a data model. > Unfortunately this data model is not defined at one place but > implied by multiple documents. The best to start with are: > > > and > > > > The Relax NG schema defines an XML format as serialization of > the data model (by the way the same format could and should also > be defined by an XML Schema document). Yes, except that a) I HATE XSD, and b) CSL is authored in RNG, and so it's easy to pull in patterns to avoid duplication. > The JSON input format is not explicitely defined by a Schema > because there is no widely adopted schema language for JSON. > I tried some of the JSON schema languages which were mentioned > in this thread but they all seem impractical - either too complex > or you cannot express everything needed and moreover a schema > without validator is of little use. I think it is more practical > to directly implement validators in several programming languages. OK, so you're suggesting to define the JSON schema in code? > By the way I would name the JSON format CSL/JSON and the XML > format CSL/XML. Other CSL input formats that could be useful > are CSL/RDF for CSL as Linked Data and CSL/Microformat to embed > CSL data in HTML. Makes sense, except I'm not interested in doing CSL/RDF; that's what BIBO is for. Bruce |