TestSuite 000001-simplepackage.odt metadata.rdf validity?

["Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamilton@acm.org>]

In the TestSuite 00001-simplepackage.odt a metadata.rdf file is present.

The metadata.rdf file is an optional provision in accordance with ODF 1.2 Part 3 Packages cd01 in Public Review (file OpenDocument-v1.2-part3-cd01.odt and its corresponding PDF and HTML files).

0. In the metadata.rdf file, replace the one occurrence of "pkh:" with "pkg:".

1. I would like to know where in the current Public Review draft you are able to find the specification details that the sample metadata.rdf file satifies?

2. If you have some other sources of those details, what is that, and should these perhaps be brought to the attention of the ODF TC (by the office-comment list) concerning information that should be incorporated in the specification under Public Review?

3. Or, perhaps it is better to avoid metadata.rdf in the TestSuite for now, and stay within the confines of what the ODF 1.2 Part 3 package specification does provide normative language and conformance clauses about.  

 - Dennis 

DETAILS

1. PACKAGE MATERIALS

1.1 THE METADATA.RDF FILE (uncorrected):

    <?xml version="1.0"?>
    <rdf:RDF 
        xmlns:pkg="http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/office/1.2/meta/pkg#";
        xmlns:odf="http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/office/1.2/meta/odf#";
        xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#";>
        <pkg:Document rdf:about="">
            <pkg:hasPart>
                <odf:ContentFile rdf:about="content.xml"/>
            </pkh:hasPart>
            <pkg:hasPart>
                <pkg:MetaDataFile rdf:about="meta/card.rdf"/>
            </pkg:hasPart>
        </pkg:Document>
    </rdf:RDF>

1.2 RELEVANT META-INF/manifest.xml CONTENT:

    <manifest:file-entry 
        manifest:full-path="manifest.rdf" 
        manifest:media-type="application/rdf+xml" /> 
  <manifest:file-entry 
        manifest:full-path="meta/card.rdf" 
        manifest:media-type="application/rdf+xml" /> 

2.  MY QUESTIONS

2.1 I personally think manifest:media-type="application/rdf+xml" is appropriate for the manifest.rdf <manifest:file-entry>.  I note, however, that there is no recommended or required media type in Part 3 CD01 and it is not even stated that the file must have an XML document with rdf:RDF root element.  There are such statements about other specific files (by provision of a schema at least).  Have you found a recommendation for use of that MIME Type or is it just that the manifest.rdf files are supposed to be using [RDF-XML] for expressing relationships and the [OWL] Metadata Manifest Description ontology?

2.2 I have seen no information about an ODF TC defined XML Namespace named "http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/office/1.2/meta/pkg#"; by which it is determined that there are elements <pkg:Document>, and <pkg:hasPart>.  I am not aware of any schema that establishes such elements and their structure for use in XML documents, especially in <rdf:RDF> elements.  I cannot find any statements in ODF 1.2 Part 3 CD01 that establish such XML elements, not even in section 5, which claims to define OWL classes and properties, not any XML elements, attributes, or data types.  I would like very much to see ODF 1.2 Part 3 have metadata.rdf be fully specified.  Where is such information found that can be incorporated in ODF 1.2 Part 3 and other parts of the ODF 1.2 specification, as appropriate?

2.3 Do you know, or know where I can find, what the manifest.rdf file tell us that the META-INF/manifest.xml file doesn't already provide?  I am assuming that the manifest.rdf file is meant to be useful in some sort of metadata-mining operation.  I confess that I am unclear how this is better than using manifest.xml (which includes all RDF files in a single list, whether in subdocuments or the main document).  I'm not arguing against manifest.rdf files, I am just wondering what they provide that is extraordinary, in comparison with manifest.xml, and what would be a manifest.rdf file that exhibited that quality.  Also, technically I think the manifest.xml file has to be consulted in order to determine what are the subdocuments, if any.  

2.4 Finally, I notice that the <pkg:Document> element has an rdf:about="" attribute. This is not a URI, not even a relative one as far as I can tell.  How is this to be understood as a URI and what would be its (hypothetical) resolution to an absolute URI?  If this is the special convention described in the first paragraph of section 5.3 in "RDF/XML Syntax Specification (Revised)" W3C Recommendation 10 February 2004, it is necessary to know what the in-scope base URI is, according to [XML-BASE] (27 June 2001 version or 28 January 2009 Second Edition perhaps).  From Part 3 CD01 section 2.7, it would appear that is the file entry base IRI as defined there.  That doesn't seem to be what is intended (and I confess that section 2.7 is very difficult to apply to this case).

-----Original Message-----
From: workgroup_mailer@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:workgroup_mailer@lists.oasis-open.org] 
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/oic/200912/msg00045.html
Sent: Sunday, December 13, 2009 09:24
To: oic@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [oic] Version Control Commit by bart.hanssens

Author: bart.hanssens
Date: 2009-12-13 12:23:45 -0500 (Sun, 13 Dec 2009)
New Revision: 124
Web View: http://tools.oasis-open.org/version-control/browse/wsvn/oic/TestSuite/branches/barth/odf12/?rev=124&sc=1

Added:
   TestSuite/branches/barth/odf12/files/
   TestSuite/branches/barth/odf12/files/00001-simplepackage.odt
[ ... ]