Re: [office] Re: [office-metadata] Our discussion on the Wiki example

["Bruce D'Arcus" <bdarcus@gmail.com>]

On Dec 28, 2006, at 12:28 PM, Michael Brauer wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
>> Hi Bernd,
>> On Dec 28, 2006, at 7:02 AM, Bernd Schuster wrote:
>>> From my point of you, there are no objections to write:
>>>
>>> <text:p xml:id="myBook">
>>> My favorite books is from Tolkien! It's ISBM is <text:span  
>>> xml:id="isbn">8th</text:span> it has <text:span  
>>> xml:id="pages">1154</text:span> pages
>>> </text:p>
>>>
>>> ... and in the RDF/XML:
>>>
>>> <rdf:Description rdf:about="content.xml#myBook">
>>>  <ex:author rdf:resource="http://ex.net/people/Tolkien"/>
>>>  <ex:isbn rdf:resource="content.xml#isbn"/>
>>>  <ex:pages rdf:resource="content.xml#pages"/>
>>> </rdf:Description>
>>>
>>> where the "words" '8th' and '1154' are  tagged  with an  
>>> individuell xml:id  and being referenced  as objects inside the  
>>> above rdf statements.
>> Yes, the objections are:
>> 1) it is not a standard way to model RDF, and would in fact  
>> violate many ontologies. In short, we would force every literal to  
>> be a resource.
>> 2) it forces additional processing, and the metadata is now  
>> dependent on the (ODF) content
>
> I'm wondering whether the "1154" that appears in the content.xml  
> actually is an RDF object, or only the display string of an object  
> that is stored in a RDF file external to the content.xml.

I was assuming that string is the literal object (if it wasn't, then  
you'd need to duplciate the literal in the RDF/XML), but I guess  
you'd need to be explicit about defining the processing expectations.

> In this example, I would assume that all bibliographic data is  
> stored externally, and that the content.xml only displays some of  
> the RDF objects. What we would need in this case is not a reference  
> from the RDF data to the content.xml, but a reference from the  
> content.xml back to the bibliographic meta data, so that the  
> display string can be updated if the bibliographic meta data changes.

In general for this use case, yes. But Berndt (as I say below) might  
have something else in mind.

> That's actually how the meta data fields we have already in the ODF  
> spec do work. They do not define any meta data, but display it only.

I think this is a useful distinction you make, and one we will need  
to clarify: content *as* metadata, vs. fields that use metadata for  
display (or other). Elias spreadsheet example is the first, and my  
citations are the second.

Berndt's here is a little unclear actually; am not sure what he intends.

> If my assumption is not correct and the "1154" in the content.xml  
> is an RDF object, wouldn't this mean that the content.xml defines  
> bibliographic data itself? How would this data be kept up to date?
>
> Are my assumptions correct, or do I miss something?

I think you ask the right questions. If we he wants it to be live  
metadata, then its right there, in the content. But I could also  
imagine him using a field to display the data pulled in from the  
package instead.

Bruce