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

[Patrick Durusau <patrick@durusau.net>]

Svante,

I think you and Bruce are missing each other.

Bruce, as I understand the request, you want to add:

> 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.
Which is *not* defining all the semantics of a citation but merely 
allows you a place to store them. Yes?

Svante, if that is the request, I don't think Bruce is trying to define 
the semantics of a citation in ODF 1.2 but merely to have a specific 
class in the ontology for fields.

Is that accurate anyone?

Hope everyone is having a great day!

Patrick



Svante Schubert wrote:
> Bruce,
>
> Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
>> 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. 
> People on this list might have problems to follow our discussion.
>
> As background information, I was referring to an earlier discussion
> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office-metadata/200706/msg00040.html
> and wrote that instead inventing a OWL class like odf:field for 
> text:meta-field, we might as well use a generic mechanism to identify 
> certain elements from ODF.
>
> Is this the problem / the requirement we are talking about? The 
> Identifying the text:meta-field in the user metadata RDF/XML?
>
> In assumption of that I proposed to introduce (in ODF 1.3) a general 
> naming mechanism instead of inventing names for certain ODF elements.
> For example there might be metadata extension working on table:table, 
> possibly even creating or adapting them.
> In this case the table element would be already identified to be an 
> ODF element, using the OWL class describing odf:Element, but might be 
> as well be of the RDF type table:table.
>
> This would be written as:
>
> <odf:Element rdf:about="uri:someIRI" idref="someID">
>  <rdf:type 
> rdf:resource="urn:oasis:names:tc:opendocument:xmlns:table:1.0table"/>
> </odf:Element>
>
> The text:meta-field could be identified similar as the following:
>
> <odf:Element rdf:about="uri:someIRI" idref="someID">
>  <rdf:type 
> rdf:resource="urn:oasis:names:tc:opendocument:xmlns:text:1.0meta-field"/>
> </odf:Element>
>
> or - as the type could be used as RDF element name - written as
>
> <text:meta-field rdf:about="uri:someIRI" idref="someID">
>  <rdf:type 
> rdf:resource="http://docs.oasis-open.org/opendocument/meta/package/odf#Element"/> 
>
> </text:meta-field>
>
>> From an RDF perspective, it's pretty much useless.
> This surprises me, as it fullfils the requirement to identify an ODF 
> element to be a text:meta-field.
> Did I misjudged your requirements?
>>
>> 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??
> All the citation extension needs to know is where the citation field 
> is in the content, this is done by the xml:id on the field. The 
> identification of being a citation is done by the 
> rdf:type="uri:someCitationUri" in the metadata manifest. This manifest 
> includes as well a reference to the related user RDF/XML. This user 
> RDF/XML is finally free to use any RDF they desire to use.
>>
>> 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 would have assume that the prefix and suffix would be part of the 
> user RDF/XML file.
>>
>>> 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???
> I asked for a reason to break the time line. It seemed more adequate 
> to me to mature the citation vocabulary during implementing a 
> prototype instead giving limits to the citation RDF vocabulary in half 
> a week.
>>
>> 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.
> I completely agree on encouraging implementation by further assistance 
> from the metadata SC, just how the odf:Field could encoure 
> implementations is not comprehensible to me.
>
> regards,
> Svante
>
>

-- 
Patrick Durusau
patrick@durusau.net
Chair, V1 - US TAG to JTC 1/SC 34
Acting Convener, JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3 (Topic Maps)
Co-Editor, ISO/IEC 13250-1, 13250-5 (Topic Maps)
Co-Editor, OpenDocument Format (OASIS, ISO/IEC 26300)