Re: [office] Re: Splitting View and Model

[Elias Torres <eliast@us.ibm.com>]

Michael.Brauer@Sun.COM wrote on 12/19/2006 11:09:05 AM:

[snip]
> >> What is not clear to me actually is the semantic of your example. Is
> >> the is the xsd-date
> >> 2005-08-01 meta data about the ###localized data### in the content?
> >>
> >> Or is ###localized data### the visual representation of the xsd-date
> >> 2005-08-01 which is
> >> meta data about some other subject?
> >
> > This snippet:
> >
> >      <span about="foo" property="dc:date" type="xsd:date"
> > content="2005-08-01">
> >        August 1, 2005
> >      </span>
> >
> > translates to:
> >
> >       <rdf:Description rdf:about="foo">
> >             <dc:date rdf:datatype="xsd:date">2005-08-01</dc:date>
> >       </rdf:Description>
> >
> > In other words, the latter of your answers. The ###localized data### is
> > either the visual representation (in a read-only field environment) or
the
> > "hand-edited" version of the actual value which is in the content
> > attribute. RDFa designed content for this specific purpose.
> >
> > Also you asked about xsd-date being metadata about some other subject,
> > definitely not. It's the object of the triple created by the property
> > attribute with subject <foo>.
> >
>
> It's maybe a stupid question, but why can't you use the date field
> described in section
> 6.2.1,
> which inserts a date into a document, instead of modeling this with
metadata?

Sure. use the date-field. But this problem happens with any type of
information that has both a human and machine representation.

>
> Independent of that, what are the benefits of knowing that the
> string ###localized data###
> string is date 2005-08-01 if that date is not related to any other
> information?

That's not what I said. I said:

It's the object of the triple created by the property attribute with
subject <foo>.

Meaning that *it is* associated with a subject and that the subject is foo
as per in my example.

>
> I would understand that example if the date would be a metadata of
> some other subject
> (let's say a camera purchase). But in this case, wouldn't it be more
> appropriate to keep
> all the data about the camera purchase in one place, and to
> reference them from the content?


Absolutely. That's *exactly* what I'm arguing for instead of putting in
another place. sigh.

I want to let everyone know that I'm here legitimately and sincerely trying
answer everyone's questions and would like to point out that the questions
come in many forms and it's not easy. I have tried my best to explain the
merits of my proposal but I don't feel it's being well received and in some
ways I feel I'm slowing you down from the design you already seem to have.
Unfortunately, time is running out for me since I'll be going on vacation
from December 27th to sometime in February. I'll be there at the meeting
this Wednesday, but that's probably my last meeting I'll be present in a
while to help with the decision (I'll come back in February and will be
available for any questions you might have regardless of the final design
decision, that is if I know anything on the matter). I hope I have been of
help during this time and not just created more conflict or confusion. It
could be that I'm not seeing the problem correctly or my very little
knowledge of ODF and its implementations is clouding my thinking. I'm sorry
for this rant, but responding to everyone has taken a toll on my energy and
the questions keep going around in circles and not one person has shown
interest in actually looking at the matter from a constructive point of
view as opposed to just proposing counter-arguments without an actual
alternate proposal.

Sincerely,

-Elias