Re: [office-metadata] Groups - Metadata SC meeting added

["Bruce D'Arcus" <bdarcus@gmail.com>]

On Nov 7, 2006, at 3:46 PM, patrick@durusau.net wrote:

> I have added the metadata on metadata issue after we discuss other  
> material
> as we need to continue that discussion until we can reach a  
> resolution.

I'm finding the abstract discussions kind of hard going. It would  
help if someone could post one or more use cases and requisite  
proposals to give us something to talk about on these issues.

I'm willing to do that right now for this issue ...

Use case
========

Want to register information about the generator of a metadata graph  
(file).

Proposal
========

Allow foreign-namespaced properties to be attached to the manifest  
entry.

The manifest file is already valid RDF. This fragment ...

  <manifest:file-entry manifest:media-type="text/xml" manifest:full- 
path="meta.xml"/>

... thus represents a property of the manifest, which in turn  
includes a description with further properties. E.g. the above could  
be serialized like:

  <manifest:file-entry>
     <rdf:Description>
        <manifest:media-type>text/xml</manifest:media-type>
        <manifest:full-path>meta.xml</manifest:full-path>
     <//rdf:Description>
  </manifest:file-entry>

In other words, adding a generator is as simple as:

  <manifest:file-entry manifest:media-type="text/xml" manifest:full- 
path="meta.xml" meta:generator="XYZ Application"/>

Brings us back to the syntax and compatibility question, though.

There's another way, which is to describe a convention for assigning  
IRI's to the included files in an ODF package. That would allow  
separate descriptions; so-called "named graph" support. It would also  
be necessary to be able to do the external referencing of document  
content that Svante was asking about, so possible to kill two birds  
with one stone (almost).

Dan, do you have any input here?

Bruce