[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [office-metadata] Rough Proposal for RDFa + RDF/XML/XForms + xml:id
Patrick, Patrick Durusau wrote: > Michael, > > BTW, thanks for your post on the support of "unknown" content issue. > That was very helpful, at least for me. > > I look forward to hearing your explanation of your proposal as I don't > think the choice of RDFa or RDF/XML + XForms is an either/or one. I'm confused. I'm actually proposing a support of RDFa *and* RDF/XML+Forms at the same time. I will attend to the call today and may say a little bit about the proposal. But don't expect too much. It's really only a rough proposal. Michael > > Hope you are having a great day! > > Patrick > > Michael Brauer wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> this rather long mail at its end contains a proposal for supporting meta >> data via RDF/XML+XForms, a subset of RDFa, and XML-Ids. Unfortunately, >> this proposal is not understandable without reading the longer >> introduction text:-( >> >> Svante Schubert wrote: >> >>> Hello Bruce, >>> >>> Bruce D'Arcus wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> On Feb 6, 2007, at 10:14 AM, Svante Schubert wrote: >>>> >>>>> As far as I know there was agreement to figure out these advantages >>>>> by providing implementations for the examples Bernd has given >>>>> http://wiki.oasis-open.org/office/ExampleDocument. >>>>> Do we still agree on that? >>>> >>>> >>>> I and Elias already provided tons of examples. >>>> >>>> <http://wiki.oasis-open.org/office/Metadata_Examples> >>>> >>>> I don't have time to do more. So if someone else wants to adapt them >>>> to Benrd's page (through links or whatever) that's fine, but it's >>>> not likely going to be me. >>>> >>>> I really don't think we have time for more discussion. Even if we >>>> agree today that we need both the attribute and RDF/XML approach, we >>>> still have a lot of work to do. >>>> >>> I agree that there is little time left. Believe me I try to focus >>> with my questions on this list on the remaining problems. >>> >>> We might split the RDF metadata problematic into two general areas, >>> which affect ODF >>> >>> 1. The subject is in the content >>> 2. The object is a literal and in the content. >> >> >> I agree to Svante regarding these two general cases, but would like to >> know if this a common understanding of the SC, or just Svante's and my >> understanding. >> >> The first use case is the case where a document contains some text, an >> image, a table cell, etc., and where the user wants to add additional >> information about this text (for instance an annotation, author >> information, whether it is important, and so on). It is also the use >> case where a document is converted from other document formats, and >> where additional information about the text, etc. that does not have a >> counterpart in ODF should be preserved. >> >> My understanding is that one possibility to store these metadata is >> - to add an id to an appropriate element that contains the text, table >> cell, etc., and >> - to use the either relative or absolute URI of the content.xml with the >> id attached as fragment identifier as subject in the RDF triples that >> are stored in a RDF-XML stream next to the content.xml. >> >> Is that correct? >> >> Bruce, am I right that this is exactly what you propose in your Image >> and Table examples? >> >> This first use case is actually the case where I think subjects may be >> splitted: The user may select some text regardless of paragraph or >> boundaries and the like, and may then attach author information to it. >> >> However, the only extension to the above we would need in this case is >> the possibility to identify these selection with a singe id. That's >> something we have to add at the ODF content level, not at the meta data >> level. There are many option how to do that. One is the start- and >> end-element solution we use for bookmarks already, that we may want to >> reuse in order to remain consistent with the remaining specification. >> But that's an issue we may work on in detail if we agree that RDF-XML >> + ids is the right solution for this use case. >> >> >> Regarding the 2nd use case: This is the use case where the literal >> object of an RDF triple is either in the content, or displayed there. >> >> The task to display such content is not new in ODF. ODF therefore >> already has concepts that we may use as basis. >> >> The first one are text fields. They display some text content, and >> contain a description where this text content comes from. On the XML >> level they are just XML elements, whose text content is the text to be >> displayed, and that have some attributes that specify what shall be >> displayed. >> >> We therefore could add a meta data field. There are two options for >> this: First we may add attributes for the RDF subject and predicates, >> and may define that the text content of the field is the literal RDF >> object. I think that is very similar to a subset RDFa, except that the >> meta data attributes are not attached to arbitrary elements, but that >> there is a specific element that carries the meta data attributes, and >> that these elements cannot nested. >> >> The other option is to have the meta data in separate stream (including >> the literal object), and to have attributes that specify what RDF >> literal objects shall be displayed. This takes us directly to XForms, >> the 2nd feature that we may reuse, as Svante is pointing out: XForms can >> be used to bind controls and text fields (although we don't have the >> later right now) to RDF objects in an RDF-XML stream. This works >> already in ODF 1.1 (but for controls only). It therefore seems to be >> reasonable to reuse XForms for all those cases where the metadata >> is in a separate stream in the package, and where we want to display >> some of the RDF objects in the content. >> >> If we want to reuse existing concepts, we therefore have two options: >> 1. Some kind of RDFa-text-field as descibed above. >> 2. RDF/XML+XForms >> >> Actually, I think an RDFa based text field and RDF/XML + XForms >> supplement each other. The RDFa text field is a good choice if the data >> duplication of literal objects is a concern, or if there is no RDF/XML >> instance already existing. The XForms solution is a good choice if one >> already has an RDF/XML document that should be included, if the meta >> data is very complex, or if a strict separation between meta data and >> office content is requested. >> >> I therefore propose that we support both options, and additionally of >> cause what is required for the "subject is in the content" case. >> >> Best regards >> >> Michael >> >> >> >> >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]