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] Groups - Metadata_Model_Proposal (07-02-19-ODF-MetaData.odt) uploaded



On Feb 21, 2007, at 9:49 AM, Elias Torres wrote:

> I think that using rdf:about per se is not incorrect. We could stretch 
> it
> that far and use it, but I think we need more than just about, we need
> property, class, etc. Since we don't control that namespace, I'd think 
> it'd
> not be the best solution to have one attribute from rdf namespace and 
> the
> rest from our own. Hence we should put all of our attributes in our own
> schema.

+1

> If RDFa was published and at first we wanted it to be a vocabulary
> for all XML dialects, then we could have used rdfa:about, etc, but
> unfortunately that's not the case. I also think that it's not necessary
> that we re-use the rdf ns prefix if it's not rdf. I think our spec is
> office metadata so something along those lines might be more intuitive 
> than
> just rdf like meta, odf-meta, ometa, whatever.

Right.

...

> In RDFa, xml:id identifies the element and so does <a name=""/> but
> rdf:about is used to "establish" the subject at that element or its
> children of a triples which uses the "content" of the element. 
> meta:about
> doesn't identify the element or the content. I think this is extremely
> important for us to agree on.

This is why I actually think the RDFa convention of attaching an about 
attribute on paragraphs and such which then establish the subject for 
child spans and such is confusing. It's a short-hand very useful for 
hand-authoring of HTML and such that actually confuses what's going on 
at the model level. What's important is the in-content triples (which 
often could have different subjects).

So I think we actually need to make this as clear as possible, both in 
the encoding, and in the spec.

...

>>> 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?
>
> Very close. Let me try to exemplify (again from RDFa perspective):
>
> In content:
>
> <text:span xml:id="foo">Hi Michael</text:span>
>
> In package:
>
> <rdf:Description rdf:about="content.xml#foo">
>   <dc:title>Welcome Text</dc:title>
> </rdf:Description>
>
> In this case there we have an xml:id which is used to generate a 
> (relative)
> URI <content.xml#foo>. This URI can then be used in the RDF/XML to make
> statements about the **subject** not the object. The subject is #foo.
>
> <content.xml#foo> dc:title "Welcome Text".
>
> I would make this triple mean the "foo" element's title (or label) is 
> some
> welcome text. It doesn't say anything about Hi Michael especifically.

Right, and just for comparison, this is the example that Florian had.

So we need to distill what you've said, Elias, into a clear paragraph 
that can go into the proposal.

Bruce



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