Re: [office] Re: Splitting View and Model

[Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 - Hamburg <Michael.Brauer@Sun.COM>]

Elias,

please see also my reply to Bruce's mail.

Elias Torres wrote:
> Michael.Brauer@Sun.COM wrote on 12/19/2006 11:09:05 AM:
> 
> [snip]
>>>
>> It's maybe a stupid question, but why can't you use the date field
>> described in section
>> 6.2.1,
>> which inserts a date into a document, instead of modeling this with
> metadata?
> 
> Sure. use the date-field. But this problem happens with any type of
> information that has both a human and machine representation.

Well, the date field is a machine representation, and I'm sure we can map
it to RDF without replacing its XML representation with RDF-XML or RDF/A.
Anyway, we should not take this as an argument for or against your proposal.

> 
>> Independent of that, what are the benefits of knowing that the
>> string ###localized data###
>> string is date 2005-08-01 if that date is not related to any other
>> information?
> 
> That's not what I said. I said:

Sorry, I did misunderstand that.

> 
> It's the object of the triple created by the property attribute with
> subject <foo>.
> 
> Meaning that *it is* associated with a subject and that the subject is foo
> as per in my example.

Okay.

> 
>> I would understand that example if the date would be a metadata of
>> some other subject
>> (let's say a camera purchase). But in this case, wouldn't it be more
>> appropriate to keep
>> all the data about the camera purchase in one place, and to
>> reference them from the content?
> 
> 
> Absolutely. That's *exactly* what I'm arguing for instead of putting in
> another place. sigh.

I'm confused. Are you arguing for putting the metadata into the content
(for instance within a paragraph) or are you arguing for putting it to a location
outside the content. If I did understand you correctly, then you say you are arguing
for putting it in some other place than the content. But if I look at your example

      <span about="foo" property="dc:date" type="xsd:date"
content="2005-08-01">
        August 1, 2005
      </span>

then it seems to be included in the content. What am I missing?


> 
> I want to let everyone know that I'm here legitimately and sincerely trying
> answer everyone's questions and would like to point out that the questions
> come in many forms and it's not easy. I have tried my best to explain the
> merits of my proposal but I don't feel it's being well received and in some
> ways I feel I'm slowing you down from the design you already seem to have.
> Unfortunately, time is running out for me since I'll be going on vacation
> from December 27th to sometime in February. I'll be there at the meeting
> this Wednesday, but that's probably my last meeting I'll be present in a
> while to help with the decision (I'll come back in February and will be
> available for any questions you might have regardless of the final design
> decision, that is if I know anything on the matter). I hope I have been of
> help during this time and not just created more conflict or confusion. It
> could be that I'm not seeing the problem correctly or my very little
> knowledge of ODF and its implementations is clouding my thinking. I'm sorry
> for this rant, but responding to everyone has taken a toll on my energy and
> the questions keep going around in circles and not one person has shown
> interest in actually looking at the matter from a constructive point of
> view as opposed to just proposing counter-arguments without an actual
> alternate proposal.

Your contributions are very welcome, and I think it is a pity that you are not
available for the next few weeks.

Michael