Re: [office-metadata] Re: [Fwd: Thoughts on use case draft]

[Patrick Durusau <patrick@durusau.net>]

Bruce,

Bruce D'Arcus wrote:

> Hi John,
>
> On Jun 29, 2006, at 1:21 AM, John C Barstow wrote:
>

>> ==Ontology Validation==
>> Very tricky. Validation generally requires a closed-world assumption,
>> while many ontologies have an open-world assumption.
>
>
> I was never clear on this one. Is it really even a use case? I think not.
>
> But certainly we'll need to deal with it at some point.  With RELAX 
> NG, it's not hard to create a generic metadata validator. If you're 
> talking a profile of RDF, you can't validate stuff like linking (e.g. 
> the uri of this link matches an id for the endpoint), but you can 
> certainly validate the basic structure of the XML.
>
By "ontology" I meant that a user could declare as metadata a set of 
terms that may or may not appear in a document, along with either 
further definitions of those terms or pointers to additional information 
as to the meaning of those terms.

"Ontology validation" would be alerting a user to the existence of more 
than one metadata definition for a given term in a document. That is, 
providing them with the opportunity to choose which, if not both, 
definitions that they meant when using the term.

Quite possibly more of someone one could "do" if metadata were permitted 
to attach to terms in the document or could be specified for all 
occurrences of a term in the document, but not strictly speaking a 
metadata use case.

I am particularly interested in users being able to specify metadata for 
terms *without* having to mark each term. Unlikely that anyone is going 
to spend the time required to do so.

Hope you are having a great day!

Patrick


-- 
Patrick Durusau
Patrick@Durusau.net
Chair, V1 - Text Processing: Office and Publishing Systems Interface
Co-Editor, ISO 13250, Topic Maps -- Reference Model
Member, Text Encoding Initiative Board of Directors, 2003-2005

Topic Maps: Human, not artificial, intelligence at work!