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

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

Bruce,

Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
> 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?
>
Have you read the mail in it's total before started replying?
Just below you see a snipplet of RDF XML, which is defining "Dave 
Beckett" as the object of the predicate "ex:fullName" from an anonymous 
element node.
The ODF content "Dave Beckett" is the same.
>> (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 the end of my mail I have earlier stated that in this first draft, I 
avoid the problem of content duplication, which certainly can be solved 
if desired.
First, metadata can be stored as RDF XML that should be no problem at 
all, second it is an often used scenario that data will be created 
outside the ODF and than imported. Think of the sport team salaries, 
which might be given as a RDF XML database dump.
> 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.
Sorry, the causality of your argumentation is not completely clear to me.
>
>> 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.
>
Certainly we can, and it is only a different design approach. Could you 
please be more specific in your argumentation.

Svante.