Re: [office-metadata] Rough notes (I won't call them minutes just yet)

["Bruce D'Arcus" <bdarcus@gmail.com>]

On Feb 7, 2007, at 10:22 AM, Michael Brauer wrote:

> Well, I think the question is whether we add the meta data  
> attributes and elements to the schema or not.

Actually, it's more than this:

1) do we add the metadata attributes to the content.xml schema?

2) do we add RELAX NG validation of the RDF/XML in the package?

I vote yes for 1, and no for 2 (though with some guidelines about  
best practices).

> If we add them to the schema, then an application is able to know  
> whether a certain attribute is meta data or not.

True.

> If we don't add them to the schema, then this is in fact not the  
> case. But how do you add meta data support to an application if you  
> don't know what meta data looks like and where it may occur?
>
> So, basically what I am requesting is to add the meta data  
> attributes explicitly to the schema, and to not make any assumption  
> about attributes and elements not defined in the schema, even  
> though they may be meta data for some applications.

OK, if you agree with me up top.

...

> For this reason: It is fine to say that an application *may*  
> preserve arbitrary elements and attributes, and it is of cause  
> reasonable to actually preserve these elements in many cases, but  
> it is probably not a good idea to say that arbitrary elements and  
> attributes *should* or *shall* be preserved in general.

Would you agree it might make sense in some contexts to require  
preservation? E.g. say we define a new metadata field and say  
something like "one may use foreign-attributes to for parameters  
setting" or some such. Is that OK?

Bruce