=?UTF-8?Q?Regarding=20the=20=E2=80=9Csplit=E2=80=9D=20problem/us?==?UTF-8?Q?e-case?=

["Florian Reuter" <freuter@novell.com>]

Regarding the “split” problem/use-case I must confess I don’t really see the problem/need.

If I wanted to mark parts of a paragraph with metadata I would simple use structures which are there and attach and RDF statement to it.

In the given use case I would use a bookmark and attach metadata to the bookmark.

Bookmarks can start and end at “everywhere”. I really dislike the object:id approach.

With bookmarks you can achieve the same thing as with object:id’s --- I believe.

E.g. consider the ODF fragment
<text:p >XXX <text:bookmark-start text:name="_MYBOOKMARK"/>MMMMM</text:p>
<text:p >MMMM<text:bookmark-end text:name="_MYBOOKMARK"/> XXXX</text:p>

We could then have an RDF statement like
(bookmark::_MYBOOKMARK, my:mark, “Important”)

Please note that bookmarks can be hidden. So we won’t event bother the user with RDF bookmarks.

How we encode the above RDF statement is up to us. We can do inline like
<text:p >XXX <text:bookmark-start text:name="_MYBOOKMARK" my:mark=”Important”/>MMMMM</text:p>
<text:p >MMMM<text:bookmark-end text:name="_MYBOOKMARK"/> XXXX</text:p>

or in a separate RDF stream. We only need to define a URI syntax to address bookmarks then…

The bookmark approach for this special use case together with an external RDF stream would even provide backward compatiblity with current ODF readers, since they will preserve the bookmarks and preserve the external RDF stream.

~Florian