Re: [office-metadata] Multiple content nodes representing on RDFsubject

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

Hi Bruce,

Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
>
> On Dec 22, 2006, at 6:19 PM, Svante Schubert wrote:
>
>> Obviously my example could have been chosen better as what I intended 
>> to show, was an example of a literal to be referenced from the 
>> metadata, which only makes sense in it's full length.
>
> You don't reference a literal, in the sense that a literal cannot be a 
> subject. It can only be an object of a triple.
Certainly is the object the literal and the text node in the content. 
But that is not the problem this time...
Image there is your name "Bruce D'Arcus" in a text:p. This string "Bruce 
D'Arcus" is a literal and when only parts are being used, it has in 
general not the same semantic as in full length.

In content.xml:

<text:p xml:id="_foo1">Bruce D'Arcus</text:p>

In metadata:

<RDF:RDF xmlns:RDF="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#";
         xmlns:test="http://www.meta-subcomitee.com/dummy/rdf#";>
 <rdf:Description rdf:about="#Bruce">
  <test:name rdf:resource="content.xml#_foo1"/>
 </rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF>



>
>> Imagine a name, quote, which looses his semantic when it's string is 
>> reduced.  There should be a nice example where the literal has to be 
>> split, someone help me out on this?
>
Now I am looking for an example as earlier stated.
An example of a silly user could be, if he inserts a table somewhere 
inside your name.

In content.xml:

<text:p xml:id="_foo1">Bru</text:p>
<table:table>...</table:table>
<text:p xml:id="_foo2"> ce D'Arcus</text:p>

By an indirection the semantic won't be lost.

<content xml:id="_fooA">
 <ref idref="_foo1"/>
 <ref idref="_foo2"/>
</content>

In metadata:

<RDF:RDF xmlns:RDF="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#";
         xmlns:test="http://www.meta-subcomitee.com/dummy/rdf#";>
 <rdf:Description rdf:about="#Bruce">
  <test:name rdf:resource="content.xml#_fooA"/>
 </rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF>


> You keep using the word "semantic" which is effectively meaningless. 
> Again, what's the subject that you want to describe, and what 
> statement(s) do you want to make about it?  If you cannot be specific 
> about this, it's impossible to address your issue.
>
> If you must, post the entire example you have in mind.
Hopefully this could help you.
>
> Bruce
>
Best regards,
Svante