Finding a common proposal..

[Svante Schubert <Svante.Schubert@Sun.COM>]

Hi all,

As Bruce stated earlier, we have little time left for our first draft,
so all of the group should please participate in the following discussion:

To be able to get faster to a common proposal, Elias and I suggest to
list possible designs aspects, bringing up the low level requirements
behind the design and see what requirements are more important.

Why doing this? For me RDFa seems to be worked out well for XHTML, now I
am asking myself if and what advantages we exactly gather when adapting
to our compound format. Meaning: what additional requirements can we
fulfill with a separated design and how far shall meta data be split.

Low-level Requirements:
   * Flexible solution
         o Easy (ex)change of meta data
   * Consistency
         o Avoid redundant data
         o Possible to validate metadata used in content
   * Standard based
         o RDF compatible
   * Generic solution
         o Full coverage of use case categories:
               * Metadata contains/reference additional data
               * Metadata specifies a unique content
               * Metadata specifies a class of content
               * multiple metadata related to content

Agreed Design Decisions:
   * RDF compatible (is this agreed, any protest?)

Uncertain Design Decisions:
   * No redundancy by referencing content used as meta data (no
      repetition of data from the content in the meta data)
   * Content.xml should contain all text (content) to be viewed
   * As much meta data as possible (apart of the metadata being shown)
should be stored in a package aside

It would help a lot, if we would enlarge and redefine this list by
discussion.

Kind regards,
Svante