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

[Bruce D'Arcus <bruce.darcus@OpenDocument.us>]

On Dec 5, 2006, at 9:28 PM, Svante Schubert wrote:

> We have to distinguish between features of a special citation plug-in 
> - like the change between citations, and the need to make the relevant 
> data recognizable for everybody by marking the relevant sub-parts as 
> meta-data, enabling by this the possibility of validation of the 
> sub-parts.

But Svante, you are inventing a new requirement here. There is nothing 
in the language of the existing requirements that suggests we need to 
do this.

Moreover, you are being inconsistent: doing what you are asking about 
requires us to use an RDFa-like mechanism.

>> Nevermind RDF and such; just go back to BibTeX. This proposal just 
>> uses the same approach, but updated for the 21st century. It's also 
>> the same basic approach MS is using in Word 2007/ OOXML (again, minus 
>> the RDF).
> The argument that others do it as well is only valid for real 
> standards. In relation of MS only interoperability counts for us.

The argument is based on the fact that it works; it's been proven for 
decades.

>>> BTW I found an argument for the design decision, that all viewabe 
>>> 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.
>>
>> In fact, one of the reasons I embarked on all this is because the 
>> existing ODF citation solution is fatally flawed in its design, 
>> precisely because metadata is added as attributes to each citation 
>> (text:bibliographic-mark). In a book where I might cite the same 
>> reference 50 times, that's a whole lot of redundant metadata.
> Did I get it right, that you argue to move repeating presentation of 
> citation to the meta data?
> By referencing from the content.xml to meta.xml and viewing data only 
> stored in the meta.xml?

No.

>> Given all this, isn't it easier to just treat the presentation 
>> content as that black box?
> Yes, as long the it does not contain semantic sub-parts.

In which case given all that you've said, we need to use RDFa in the 
content file.

Bruce