Re: [office] Meta Data Requirments Sub Committee

[Bruce D'Arcus <bruce.darcus@OpenDocument.us>]

On Feb 23, 2006, at 10:43 AM, Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 - 
Hamburg wrote:

> OpenDocument Meta Data Sub Committee (MDSC) Draft Charter
> =========================================================

A minor issue: in English "meta data" is usually one word: metadata.

> Statement of purpose
> --------------------
> 1. To gather use cases for the application of meta data in OpenDocument
> documents and OpenDocument aware applications.
> 2. To classify the use cases.
> 3. To derive meta data related requirements for future versions of
> OpenDocument from the use case classes.
> 4. To propose meta data related enhancements for OpenDocument for
> consideration by the Opendocument TC which address these requirements.

OK.

> Deliverables
> ------------
> 1. A list of meta data use cases for OpenDocument documents and 
> OpenDocument
> enabled applications, together with a classification of the use cases.
> 2. A list of meta data related requirements for future versions of
> OpenDocument, which will be prioritized by the OpenDocument TC.
> 3. Proposals for OpenDocument enhancements which address the 
> requirements
> identified in deliverable 2.

Can we not just combine 1 and 2?  E.g. have:

1. A document that includes:

	a. use cases ...
	b. requirements ...

> Scope of work
> -------------
> The subcommittee's work is to collect use cases where meta data is 
> passedor
> stored along with OpenDocument documents, to classify them as described
> above, and to derive a set of requirements for future versions of
> OpenDocument from these classes. The subcommittee's work further is to
> prepare proposal for OpenDocument enhancements which address these 
> requirements.

OK.

> The proposed enhancements must provide general solutions for the 
> application
> of meta data in OpenDocument documents and OpenDocument aware 
> applications in
> general. That is, they have to be neutral to specific meta data 
> ontologies.

I would use the word "vocabulary" rather than "ontology."

> The proposed enhancements further must consider office applications as 
> the
> main editing tool for OpenDocument documents

I think this last bit is too restrictive. You are already assuming 
particular use cases and requirements when you write that into the 
charter. I can imagine examples where an office application may use 
embedded metadata, but may not be its primary creator/editor.

> , which means, they must not conflict with the processing model of 
> OpenDocument documents for office
> applications.

That's fine. I just suggest you rewrite the last bit to not assume the 
preceding. I think the requirements document should specify the need to 
define levels of conformance that address this issue.

Bruce