Re: [office-metadata] Finding a common proposal..

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

Hi Svante,

On Dec 5, 2006, at 4:24 PM, Svante Schubert wrote:

> Low-level Requirements:

Just a reminder: the TC has already agreed to list of requirements:

	<http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/20493/UCR.pdf>

I certainly don't think it's in the scope of our work to reconsider  
the requirements. The whole point of that process was to come to a  
final agreement.

> 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

I don't like the "no redundancy" requirement (e.g. in the spec "there  
shall be no redundancy") at all. By that logic, the citation field  
could not have an author name or date (e.g. in-text content of "(Doe,  
1999)"), and I see that kind of restriction as counter-productive.  
Moreover, ODF already has many structures which include both  
presentation and machine-oriented content (links, fields, etc.).

You know my view on the second point. Maybe John's promised medical  
example can shed further light here.

But I'm actually fine with the last point as a best practices design  
suggestion (though wouldn't want to try to mandate it in the spec).  
In fact, I think it a good idea that metadata in general be stored in  
the package.

So it seems to me the debate here is NO metadata in content vs. SOME  
metadata in content.

Bruce