[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Fwd: [office] Re: [office-metadata] Focus on model
Michael's full note for reference. Begin forwarded message: > From: Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 - Hamburg > <Michael.Brauer@Sun.COM> > Date: December 18, 2006 5:47:14 AM EST > To: Lars Oppermann <Lars.Oppermann@Sun.COM> > Cc: OASIS Office <office@lists.oasis-open.org> > Subject: [office] Re: [office-metadata] Focus on model > Reply-To: office-metadata@lists.oasis-open.org > > Hi, > > (I'm sending this mail to the office-list, since I'm not a member of > the metadata SC, but please don't hesitate to continue your discussion > on the meta list.) > > Lars Oppermann wrote: >> Florian, and all the others... >> I did not follow the recent discussion in all its detail, please let >> me know if I'm going into the wrong direction here. >> From what I have read during the last days, I was of the impression, >> that marking fragments of OD content as subjects about which metadata >> statements are made is a well agreed upon concept. I got the >> impression that most of the problems were in cases, where OD content >> should be used as the object of such a statement. >> Consider the statement >> {the_fragment-called_A; was_authored_by"; "John Smith"} >> {the_fragment-called_A; was_authored_by"; "John Smith"} >> Assuming document content like this >> <t:span xml:id="A">blah blah blah</t:span> >> This could be encoded in an RDF/XML-like fashion as already noted >> like this: >> <rdf:RDF> >> <rdf:Description rdf:about="#A"> >> <dc:author>John Smith</dc:author> >> </rdf:Description> >> </rdf:RDF> > > My understanding of this example is that the metadata shall be within > another package stream than "content.xml". In this case, the relative > IRI path for content.xml seems to be missing. If the metadata is > contained in a stream next to content.xml, this would result in > > <rdf:RDF> > <rdf:Description rdf:about="context.xml#A"> > <dc:author>John Smith</dc:author> > </rdf:Description> > </rdf:RDF> > > The resolution of relative IRI paths within packages is already > defined by the ODF specification. The only thing that is new is the > fragment identifier that references an element within the stream, but > this seems to be a common and well-understood XML technique. > > I may be wrong, but I always thought that this is exactly the way how > meta data is assigned to XML elements in general (it might be that we > would have to use the rdf:ID attribute within the content.xml, but > this shouldn't be an issue either). > > It seems to me that another item that is discussed is whether the > metadata should be within the content.xml or not. Well, since ODF > already makes a separation between styles, content and metadata, I > think it would follow the existing design principles to have it > separate. But there is also a technicals reason why I think metadata > at least optionally should be separate. Metadata could be assigned to > documents after they have been created. This in my opinion should be > possible without altering the content.xml, provided that content.xml > already contains IDs for those objects, that should get metadata > assigned. Altering the content.xml for assigning metadata seems not > only to be difficult, it may also break existing signatures. > > I further believe that metadata support is easier to implement if > metadata markup gets separated from the content markup, and if the > only link between the two are IRIs (including fragment identifiers or > xpointers). > > Michael
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]