search

ietf-tools / bibxml-service

Django-based Web service implementing IETF BibXML APIs
https://bib.ietf.org
BSD 3-Clause "New" or "Revised" License
16 stars 19 forks source link

Support Editorial Stream #301

Closed ronaldtse closed 1 year ago

ronaldtse commented 2 years ago

Description

As described in https://github.com/ietf-tools/xml2rfc/issues/896

Code of Conduct

rjsparks commented 1 year ago

@ronaldtse - this should get attention in the next couple of months - support for the editorial stream is already in xml2rfc and will be in the datatracker within the next few weeks.

ronaldtse commented 1 year ago

Thank you @rjsparks for the notice. We will implement the necessary changes.

rjsparks commented 1 year ago

fwiw, This did make it into last week's datatracker deployment.

strogonoff commented 1 year ago

@ronaldtse Are streams part of our bibliographic data model? I couldn’t find them in the RNC spec.

(If this belongs to bibliographic data then we should update the models, and if this belongs only to actual document contents then perhaps it’s not in scope of the service? It could be both, like in case of the abstract.)

opoudjis commented 1 year ago

Streams in the bibliographic model have been modelled as they have been in RFC XML, as series: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7991#section-2.47.5

<bibitem>
....
                <series type='stream'>
                   <title>editorial</title>
                   </series>
....
</bibitem>

That means that we have not modelled streams as a controlled vocabulary, since series are titled with free text.

I will not accept an extension point for streams: streams are part of referencing documents, and documents must not be referenced with flavour-specific information, that is constrained to document-internal metadata (the extension point.)

rjsparks commented 1 year ago

So, looking closely at this, and to be clear - @ronaldtse opened this issue watching what was happening in xml2rfc. There's no change needed for us in the bibxml that is created for RFCs. Those entries do not say anything about stream and we don't intend for them to do so anytime in the near future. I think Ron was just wanting to ensure that there weren't changes needed and to have you look to see if you needed to make any changes at Relaton's modeling.

Again, for our bibxml service, we're not looking for a change at this time. Perhaps that means this issue should be closed, and discussion of whether stream is captured in the relaton models can move to a more appropriate venue?

stefanomunarini commented 1 year ago

Thanks @opoudjis and @rjsparks for the clarification. I will close this issue for now. Feel free to reopen it if you think if becomes of relevance at a certain point in the future.