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

[Bruce D'Arcus <bruce.darcus@OpenDocument.us>]

Svante,

On Jan 2, 2007, at 5:52 PM, Svante Schubert wrote:

> In the content.xml something similar to this is used :
>
> <text:p xml:id="_foo1">Dave </text:p>
> <table:table>...</table:table>
> <text:p xml:id="_foo2">Beckett</text:p>
>
> We have the literal "Dave Beckett" splitted by a table, which is  
> equivalent to the content of a metadata RDF XML node.

I keep saying this over and over again, and you're not listening to me:  
you need to be specific! Do you mean to say that the literal here is a  
property? Or is it a label for a resource? In either case, why should  
you assume that the subject identified with a local URI?

> (Obviously there are more realistic scenarios for this problem, for  
> simplicity I stick on this.)
>
> We have in RDF XML metadata the following
> <rdf:Description rdf:about="http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar";>
>  <ex:editor>
>    <rdf:Description>
>      <ex:fullName>Dave Beckett</ex:fullName>
>    </rdf:Description>
>  </ex:editor>
> </rdf:Description>

This is a silly example Svante. If you have the metadata in the  
package, why do you need it in the content too?

In general, I do not accept your presumption that this problem (a user  
splitting a property literal across nodes) is our problem, and that it  
should drive the design.

Repeat: I reject this example.

> And as an implementation detail the following - not aware for RDF  
> applications - a relation between the XML snipplets above:
> Representing the relation of the metadata and content:
> <meta:relation xml:id="_fooA">      <content>
>        <part xlink:href="content.xml#_foo1"/>
>        <part xlink:href="content.xml#_foo2"/>
>     </content>
>    <metadata  
> xlink:href="mymeta.xml#xpointer(rdf:Description[rdf:about='http:// 
> www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar']/ex:editor/rdf:Description/ex: 
> fullName)"/>
> </meta:relation>
>
> In this first design step several problems and simplifications have  
> been neglected (e.g. content duplication). It should only show the  
> possibility of using such a design to solve this problem scenario.

I am going to keep repeating this, since you seem not to be listening  
to me: this is not an acceptable solution. Your solution will break  
(you CANNOT use XPointer to bind to an RDF property with ANY kind of  
reliability), and is a needlessly complicated approach to a  
non-existent problem.

Bruce