[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: [OASIS Issue Tracker] Commented: (OFFICE-2576) Public Comment: OnRDF in ODF
[ http://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/browse/OFFICE-2576?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=18939#action_18939 ]
Michael Stahl commented on OFFICE-2576:
----------------------------------------
1. RDFa
First, note that the <text:meta> element is not limited to the RDFa
attributes;
it can also have only an xml:id attribute, or both an xml:id and RDFa.
The <text:meta> element would thus not become obsolete by removing the RDFa
attributes, because via the xml:id it can be used in RDF statements.
The main use case for RDFa attributes is when the metadata that you want to
have in the RDF data model is already part of the content. RDFa allows, in
this specific case, to re-use the content as an RDF literal. Without RDFa it
would be required to duplicate the content in an RDF/XML file. This may later
lead to inconsistencies.
RDFa is not only supported on text:meta, but also on other elements, for
example, on <text:bookmark-start>. Of course the bookmark-start/bookmark-end
content cannot practically be generated from RDF triples, because there may be
arbitrary elements in between (tables, frames, ....) and the content in
between
also does not even need to be well-formed (hence the -start/-end elements).
Besides, the issue of whether to include RDFa or not was extensively discussed
by the Metadata SC, and we would rather open a can of worms than re-open that
discussion.
2. the proposed <text:meta-get> field
The idea of the <text:meta-get> field is very interesting.
AFAIK there was discussion to deprecate the meta.xml file in favor of RDF
metadata for ODF-Next anyway; removing lots of text fields in favor of a
generic field that can display a specific RDF node in a well-defined way
(as opposed to <text:meta-field>) promises to be a great simplification.
The additional usage of the proposed <text:meta-get> field to display
arbitrary RDF nodes from the Semantic Web sounds like icing on the cake.
3. CURIEs in RDFa
We have simply taken the four RDFa attributes from
RDFa-in-XHTML, complete with their datatypes.
Indeed it is arguable whether CURIEs are really necessary for our use of
RDFa.
If we retain CURIEs, that will result in increased effort to implement ODF.
If we remove CURIEs, then ODF will have essentially nothing in common with
RDFa-in-XHTML anymore, and possibly the RDFa attributes should then not be
in an xhtml namespace.
But this decision has essentially been made a long time ago by the metadata SC.
> Public Comment: On RDF in ODF
> -----------------------------
>
> Key: OFFICE-2576
> URL: http://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/browse/OFFICE-2576
> Project: OASIS Open Document Format for Office Applications (OpenDocument) TC
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Metadata
> Affects Versions: ODF 1.2 Part 1 CD 4
> Reporter: Robert Weir
> Fix For: ODF-Next
>
>
> Copied from office-comment list
> Original author: Søren Roug <soren.roug@eea.europa.eu>
> Original date: 27 Feb 2010 17:51:04 -0000
> Original URL: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office-comment/201002/msg00037.html
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators: http://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/secure/Administrators.jspa
-
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]