Re: [office-metadata] Rough notes (I won't call them minutes justyet)

[Patrick Durusau <patrick@durusau.net>]

Michael,

Michael Brauer wrote:

> Hi Patrick,
>
> the last sentence is close to my concerns. An application *may* of 
> cause preserve arbitrary meta data at arbitrary elements. But ODF 
> would become difficult to implement if we require that applications 
> *must* preserve or *should* preserve arbitrary meta data at arbitrary 
> elements. So what we have to do is to identify those elements where we 
> want to say that applications *should* preserve metadata. For all 
> others elements, applications *may* preserve metadata.
>
> Is that clearer?
>
Only just. Sorry.

Part of my concern is that you seem to assume that an application can 
distinguish between metadata and I assume non-metadata. If it is truly 
arbitrary markup that has been added, how does an application make that 
distinction? It could be metadata or it could be non-metadata. All the 
application knows is that the additonal material is unknown to it. (In 
other words it cannot know if it is "metadata" or "non-metadata.")

Why does ODF become difficult to implement if arbitrary metadata is 
allowed? How is arbitrary metadata different from arbitrary non-metadata?

I think this is where we are missing each other. I don't understand how 
something that is arbitrary can be divided into metadata and non-metadata.

And if we don't require preservation, how do we handle the "lite" to the 
"rich" client scenario? Do we just have to depend on having "lite" 
clients that do preserve what they don't understand? Even though it is 
not required.

Obviously you are seeing an issue with preservation that is escaping me. 
Can you say why preservatiion of arbitrary content (whether metadata or 
not) is difficult?

Hope you are having a great day!

Patrick

> Michael
>
> Patrick Durusau wrote:
>
>> Michael,
>>
>> Snipping to your last point:
>>
>> Michael Brauer wrote:
>> <snip>
>>
>>>> 5. Preservation of all metadata? Means content not understood must be
>>>>    preserved. 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> We have to careful with this. What works is that we say that RDF-XML 
>>> streams in the package should be preserved, and that we identify a 
>>> couple of XML elements where we also say that meta data related 
>>> attributes have to be preserved. What will not work is to preserve 
>>> meta data at arbitrary elements.
>>>
>> Why not?
>>
>> The reason why we discussed this some months ago in SC was to deal 
>> with the issue of "lite" applications that may not understand 
>> metadata that would be useful to a "richer" application (realizing 
>> that "lite" and "rich" are relative and rather vague terms) must 
>> preserve that metadata.
>>
>> However, then the issue is, since the metadata work will allow 
>> arbitrary metadata (which the SC has avoided defining, working only 
>> on the mechanism for adding metadata), how do we distinguish what 
>> must be preserved.
>>
>> Yes, saying RDF-XML streams in the package plus attributes on defined 
>> XML elements would work, but why?
>>
>> ODF 1.1 says applications may preserve content that they don't 
>> understand.
>>
>> I would think if preservation of content that is not understood, 
>> whether metadata or not, "will not work" we would not have permitted 
>> it in ODF 1.0 and 1.1.
>>
>> Granted, that may "not work" with some particular implementation 
>> strategy but that is not really our concern.
>>
>> Close? Or did I miss the issue? Or do you see ODF 1.2 moving towards 
>> a more restrictive model in terms of everything in the package *must* 
>> be understood?
>>
>> Hope you are having a great day!
>>
>> Patrick
>>
>
>
>
>

-- 
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!