Re: [office-metadata] suggestions on identifying nodes, namespace

[Svante Schubert <Svante.Schubert@Sun.COM>]

Hi Bruce,

many thanks for catching this up.
For me the ID with it's binding mechanism is the most important thing to 
decide. I would like to focus on this as a next step, although other 
things, might be interesting, too.

I would even separate the usage of a meta:class attribute from this 
discussion, as Elias stated in the call grouping might be done in 
RDF/XML group/bag and is therefore - although possibly welcome - an 
additional option.

For now I would like to give examples why I think a unique ID is necessary:
Imagine there are dozen identical tables in a document. In our earlier 
scenario we would have given them the same meta:id. But when any RDF 
application later during the existence of the document, wants to add 
metadata only to one of the tables (for example to add a running / 
counting number or to express the one, that is first seen by the reader) 
there would be no way, but to change the ID, which would raise 
consistency problems, possibly even unsolvable from the application as 
it would be linked from external documents.


Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
> So based on conversation today, here's what I'd suggest:
>
> 1) use xml:id to identify document elements
We have here already a decision to be made. Do we use xml:id or do we 
use meta:id and require an IRI for RDF way of binding?
I earlier preferred the IRI binding, but I do not like to have two 
different types of IDs in the content. xml:id and meta:id, which as 
additional to xml:id the restriction to be an IRI.
If we use a xml:id, we have to solve the problem of relative links, once 
the validation of an RDF/XML with relative provided a deprecation 
warning using

http://www.w3.org/RDF/Validator/

Now the relative link is (incorrectly) resolved by exchanging '../' with 
'http://www.w3.org/RDF/Validator/' (already reported).

Elias once came up with the idea of using a xml:base URL, which might be 
theoretically different for every RDF/XML file of the package.

Furthermore to make things for RDF comparable we suggested to use owl:sameAs
http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/#sameAs-def

Any further details I have not mentioned that might help us to find a 
decision?

Bests,
Svante.

>
> The one issue I think we'd want to resolve is whether we want to use 
> existing name attributes (for tables and such) to achieve the same thing.
>
> Clarification: Elias emphasized that there are ways other than using 
> identifiers to group items with common properties. The obvious one is 
> to assign them an rdf:type, which can be annoted with additional 
> properties.
>
> So from the model perspective, you have two tables: with xml:id or 
> table-name attribute of "table-1" and "table-2". Triples are:
>
> <[base-uri]table-1> rdf:type <http://ex.net/SalaryTable> .
>
> <[base-uri]table-2> rdf:type <http://ex.net/SalaryTable> .
>
> ... and then:
>
> <http://ex.net/SalaryTable> dc:description "Shows annual salaries."
>
> 2) move all of the metadata attributes -- property, resource, about, 
> value, data-type (I don't remember what they last few are precisely) 
> -- into the meta prefix ODF namespace.
>
> Bruce
>