[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [office-metadata] question for Elias on rdf:type/odf:type
I can't give my opinion always because of time (and travel). But Svante knew clearly well after spending almost 2 hours on the phone together that we did not agree. I sent a few notes on the issues explaining my side of the problem and I don't think I have seen Svante's refutal or alternative except for what he added directly to the draft specification. This is where I have the problem. -Elias Patrick Durusau <patrick@durusau.net> wrote on 05/17/2007 10:07:21 AM: > Elias, > > Noted. > > It would be helpful if we knew your opinion about the question that was > asked. > > Hope you are having a great day! > > Patrick > > PS: Yes, it would be better if the editors (myself included) were more > systematic about posing issues rather than just making changes. I will > try to do better as will Svante. If you like, we can post these as > issues for the current draft and formally note them for discussion next > week. I suppose I can also list a whole series of editorial nits for > formal approval as well. > > Elias Torres wrote: > > >Patrick Durusau <patrick@durusau.net> wrote on 05/17/2007 05:10:31 AM: > > > > > > > >>Elias, > >> > >>Elias Torres wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >>>I had not seen that. Where will this be used? In the manifest? If so, we > >>>don't need odf:type, we need to use rdf:type, much preferred. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>Under 1.1.1 Declaration of Metadata Files in the Metadata Manifest, File > >>Types, where it reads: > >> > >>*** > >> > >>One or more <odf:type> property elements specify the metadata type of a > >>metadata file. The property may be used to relate a metadata file to an > >>RDF application. > >> > >>*** > >> > >>And under OpenDocument Elements, where it reads: > >> > >>*** > >> > >>The <odf:Element> element can be bound to a metadata file by the > >>odf:belongsTo property attribute. The odf:belongsTo property attribute > >>value is the IRI of a named RDF graph. > >> > >>*** > >> > >>The purpose as I understand it was to assist applications in associating > >>an RDF application with particular metadata. > >> > >>BTW, this has been discussed and you took the position that we should > >>specify less rather than more and to allow implementation experience to > >>decide how that should be accomplished. > >> > >> > >> > > > >Discussed or agreed upon? I looked through the minutes and did not see > >anything about this. I repeat, I do not like working on this, if a new > >specification feature/paragraph/etc that has not received consensus from > >the group and the only two involved parties discussing it are in clear > >disagreement. Then, if the one who decides, does just because he's the > >editor, I'm quite dissatisfied with the approach. This is something I > >clearly remember asking during the call when we decided editors and what > >their role and authority was over the spec and the response I received was > >not what's happening today. If the editors have total control, I don't want > >to be a part of this. I know this may sound a bit too precipitated > >especially now that we are 90% of the way, but I want to express this > >anyway, even though it will be completely ignored, given the current wave > >of actions. > > > >-Elias > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Patrick Durusau > Patrick@Durusau.net > Chair, V1 - Text Processing: Office and Publishing Systems Interface > Co-Editor, ISO 13250, Topic Maps -- Reference Model > Member, Text Encoding Initiative Board of Directors, 2003-2005 > > Topic Maps: Human, not artificial, intelligence at work! >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]