OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

office-metadata message

[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


Hi Bruce,

Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
> 
> So just to summarize my position on Michael's proposals on reflection:
> 
> On Feb 7, 2007, at 10:35 AM, Michael Brauer wrote:
> 
>> 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.
> 
> I think this is a fine compromise. It solves this class of use case in a 
> focused way, and we can always remove restrictions later if needed.

That's correct. As you said below, we may continue our work after a 1.2.

> 
> And it allows me to use the metadata attributes in my citation field as 
> well I presume? E.g. the attributes would not be limited to the new 
> field you are proposing? They would just excluded from spans and 
> paragraphs and such.

Let's say they have to be independent from the structure of an ODF 
document. I have explained that further in my other mail. I think what 
would be best id if you write a proposal where we can see which elements 
and attributes you would like to add, so that we can check whether this 
matches into office documents.

> 
>> 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.
> 
> I like the idea of reusing XForms controls, but:
> 
> a) I consider this an implementation issue outside our scope (if people 
> want to use XForms for editing RDF/XML instances, great, but it should 
> not be our concern)

I disagree here. XForms is already a feature of ODF. We therefore must 
consider it.

> 
> b) for the reasons Elias and I mentioned, I do not agree using XPath for 
> data-display binding makes sense
> 
> In essence, yes to everything Michael wrote here, EXCEPT to the XForms 
> data-binding idea.

I think we just should wait for a detailed proposal here before we judge 
whether the restriction we have to make let the XForms/Xpath approach 
appear to be reasonable or not.

> 
> We've talked about this many times in the past on this list. There are 
> other mechanisms to achieve the desired outcome here (knowing what to 
> display for a given subject reference in the content). The most simple 
> one is a convention: use the rdf:value property of a resource. This is 
> what the SIMILE Project at MIT does with its Piggy Bank Firefox browser.

You probably have already send an example for this to the list, but can 
you please provide one again (or a link to it), to save me the time to 
search for it.

> 
> It's critical that we remain focused on that document or we cannot 
> complete our work.
> 
> Finally, I want to remind people that the metadata work does not need to 
> end at ODF 1.2. The list of what we agree on already would be a very 
> nice addition on which to build later if needed. But we can't really 
> know how developers will use this functionality unless we actually 
> provide it.
> 
> We're so close to a final consensus here. I hope we can finalize that 
> really soon.

I agree to all of that. In particular: It is of cause an option to 
restrict the RDF-XML that is supported for ODF 1.2, and to remove these 
restrictions or part of it for a later release if we have found 
solutions the the issues we get then not restricting the RDF-XML.

Michael
> 
> Bruce
> 


-- 
Michael Brauer, Technical Architect Software Engineering
StarOffice/OpenOffice.org
Sun Microsystems GmbH             Nagelsweg 55
D-20097 Hamburg, Germany          michael.brauer@sun.com
http://sun.com/staroffice         +49 40 23646 500
http://blogs.sun.com/GullFOSS



[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]