[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [office-metadata] Groups - Metadata_Model_Proposal(07-02-19-ODF-MetaData.odt) uploaded
Hi, I won't be able to attend to the call today. Below are my comments: Bruce D'Arcus wrote: > > On Feb 20, 2007, at 10:57 AM, Svante Schubert wrote: > >> Hi Bruce, >> >>> >>> 1) Section 1.2.2 >>> >>> a. The metadata attributes for about and property need to be in a >>> namespace other than the rdf namespace. I have typically been >>> assuming meta. >> Yes, you might be correct on this. Actually, we swifted the name in >> the last hour from 'meta:id' to 'rdf:about', as we wanted to reuse >> existing tags. >> I assume the rdf:about is used in a slightly different way in RDF. >> What we intended to do was to 'tag'/assign an IRI to the ODF element. >> Therefore it might be used multiple times from various vocabularies, >> which simply would relate to this ODF element via this IRI. As we >> described by this IRI always an ODF element, we suggested even to >> create a set of IRI for our purposes, to make this RDF subject/object >> group more distinguishable. >> Perhaps you might give us some more details about the problem as you >> see it? > > OK, there are two aspects to this issue: the easy part, and the hard part. > > The easy part is just that for in content metadata we don't want to use > the rdf namespace. That's what I was referring to above. We can use the RDF namespace for an attribute in the content.xml if, and only if, an approved RDF specification specifies the attribute in question as a global attribute that can be used in other schemas. If this is not the case, we must define an attribute in a namespace that belongs us. We may however use an "rdf" namespace prefix in the specification for this namespace if we think that this would be appropriate. We do so for instance for the attributes we borrow from XSL-FO and SVG. > > The hard part is the identifier stuff: what kind of a URI (local vs. > global) do we assign to content nodes, to represent what? Does it > represent the ODF document object (paragraph, table, etc.) or does it > represent the content of that object? When is it valuable to identify > these items? > > This is a deep philosophical question, ultimately, but we need to make a > clear statement on it. It's clear to me that there is a difference, but do we really have to decide for the one or the other? Could we make this dependent from the predicates that are used, that is, assume that the predicates themselves specify whether they are about the ODF object or its content? If we have to decide on one or the other option: If we say the URI represents the ODF object, then we still should be able to make statements about the content of that object by using predicates that are defined to be about the content. If we say the URI represents the content of the object, are we able to say anything about the object itself? > >>> 3) On this comment: >>> [Patrick: We might want to create a own IRI ODF Schema] >>> >>> I doubt we need to. I suggest we might list some good ones to use >>> (LSIDs, etc.) >> The idea behind was that we are always giving IRIs for ODF elements to >> describe them.. To make this clear for everyone, it might be good to >> use an own ODF element specific. > > OK, goes back to the need to define thee identifier smore clearly. It > sound analogous to using xml:id, yes? That actually is not clear to me, too. My understanding is that one assigns an IRI to objects in the content (or to the content of object - that does not matter here), and that ones uses this IRI in the rdf:about attributes of RDF-XML files to make statements about these objects. Is that correct? If so, isn't it the case the IRI is just a unique name and is not interpreted at all? Best regards Michael Best regards Michael
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]