Re: [Fwd: Re: [office-metadata] Reuse of metadata proposal for nonODF applications]

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

Svante Schubert wrote:

> Hmm.. When I see it, would someone expect that the text:meta-field 
> element as part of a RDF schema would have the same features as in an 
> ODF file?
> I don't think so, why giving things many names, when they are the same 
> in the end.

As I said on the call, that class is not formally defined anywhere. It's 
just some convention you invented. From an RDF perspective, it's pretty 
much useless.

Also as I said, fields are pretty critical semantically. In some other 
file formats, they might be represented in an attribute with content 
like "\d \s doe999 \t". In ODF 1.2, we do it in RDF/XML. We're really 
not going to say anything about how to do that??

What I am suggesting, then, is formally defining a field in OWL:

odf:Field a owl:Class .

.. which then allows me to subclass that:

odf:Citation a owl:Class ;
     rdfs:subclassOf odf:Field .

Likewise, I have pointed out that generic properties for the field like 
prefix and suffix are perfectly in order.

> I am not sure if this really have to become part of 1.2. I would rather 
> let it be, as our timeline has finally come.

With all due respect, I've waited three years to have something in the 
spec to handle citations. You're now asking me to simply forget all of 
that, even the most generic things, and wait another few years???

This goes to my question --- which I've been repeatedly asking for 
months -- about how we're going to encourage common implementations 
going forward. I'm not set on it being in the spec now, but I do insist 
that we do *something* to address this.

Bruce