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

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

Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
>
> 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.
>
3.3. Ensure Interoperability - in this case different metadata processors.
> Moreover, you are being inconsistent: doing what you are asking about 
> requires us to use an RDFa-like mechanism.
>
Why? What design implies my suggestion?
>>> 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.
>
Never change a running system, right?
>>>> 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.
>
Fine!
>>> 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.
>
Please be a little more verbose on this. Please talk in terms of design 
aspects.
> Bruce
>
Best regards,
Svante