OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

office-metadata message

[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]