Re: [office-metadata] Regarding the “split” problem/use-case

[Patrick Durusau <patrick@durusau.net>]

Bruce,

Bruce D'Arcus wrote:

>
> On Jan 17, 2007, at 8:03 AM, Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
>
>>> With bookmarks you can achieve the same thing as with object:id’s 
>>> --- I believe.
>>>
>>> E.g. consider the ODF fragment
>>> <text:p >XXX <text:bookmark-start 
>>> text:name="_MYBOOKMARK"/>MMMMM</text:p>
>>> <text:p >MMMM<text:bookmark-end text:name="_MYBOOKMARK"/> XXXX</text:p>
>>>
>>> We could then have an RDF statement like
>>> (bookmark::_MYBOOKMARK, my:mark, “Important”)
>>
>>
>> Not really. This achieves the same thing as using meta:about. It 
>> identifies a subject; not an association between objects for merging 
>> the literals (which is what the object:id attribute does). So you 
>> haven't really solved the problem ;-)
>
>
> *Unless* we want to say that the text:name attribute is equivalent to 
> object:id in that it's purpose is to identify a literal that amy be a 
> metadata object.
>
Well, unless we are in an attribute adding mood. ;-) I am not sure we 
should overload prior mechanisms in ways that are not really consistent 
with their prior usage. Probably not a problem in most cases but I think 
it runs the danger of changing the semantics of attributes in ways that 
may be unexpected.

Hope you are having a great day!

Patrick

> I have no opinion.
>
> Bruce
>
>
>
>

-- 
Patrick Durusau
Patrick@Durusau.net
Chair, V1 - Text Processing: Office and Publishing Systems Interface
Co-Editor, ISO 13250, Topic Maps -- Reference Model
Member, Text Encoding Initiative Board of Directors, 2003-2005

Topic Maps: Human, not artificial, intelligence at work!