[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [office-metadata] Finding a common proposal..
Svante.Schubert@Sun.COM wrote on 12/05/2006 07:40:25 PM: > Hi Bruce, > > Bruce D'Arcus wrote: > > ... > >>> > >>> 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)"), > >> Indeed, no data blobs should be allowed. When parts of the blob are > >> meta data pieces there is no chance to validate them against the > >> content (aside of parsing the blob). No machine is able to see > >> (easily) if the text is still consistent with the meta data. > > > > Why would the "validation" you note be a requirement for us? I mean, > > if I say "personal names shall be represented with given names > > initialized" then the rendered text will deviate from the metadata. > > It's not only not a bad thing to allow that, but a good thing. Or > > consider a blind user; how do you validate that sound is equivalent to > > text? > > > Let us neglect the coding for a while and take your in-text content of > the quotation "(Doe, 1999)" as an example. > Imagine you have a quotation plug-in to exchange the type of quotation, > therefore we need to mark "(Doe, 1999)" as a meta data area to mark it > exchangeable. I guess we all agree on that. Of course you can say that > this area is a semantic black box handled by the implementation of the > plug-in. But as there might be many plug-ins and not always available > those areas become a none-edit field. Editing these fields bring you > into danger to become inconsistent. > On the other hand, if you define "Doe" and "1999" as further areas of > meta data, it would enable you to keep them consistent with any > reference you have. > Therefore consistency is the requirement you asked for. > > BTW I found an argument for the design decision, that all viewable > content should remain in the content.xml. The reason: as multiple meta > data might like to refer to it, we would otherwise end up with > inconsistencies of data copies in various meta files as multiple plug-in > would handle the data independently. That is not correct. Just because the content is in the meta.xml doesn't mean you have to duplicate it. A reference is enough. BTW, who was moving "viewable content" to the meta.xml? If anything, I thought we had a content attribute with machine-readable data in the context.xml not in the meta.xml. > > I have to do some further research on RDFa before I answer the rest of > your mail. > > Have a good night, > Svante
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]