[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [office-metadata] My Proposal Review
Elias Torres wrote: > 1.1 has a to be discussed item: > > [2beDiscussed: There is currently no validation mechanism of RDF/XML > consistency. In other words the plugin might have problems to guarantee for > the consistency data from other plugins, in other words can only guarantee > for his data.Furthermore, there is no validation about completeness of the > RDF/XML, only the plugin knows what is mandatory? ] > > There's a validation mechanism for RDF/XML. Validation in that we can > ensure is valid RDF, but not whether it conforms to a specific ontology or > schema. > > http://www.w3.org/RDF/Validator/ > In general I would like to postpone this, until we figured out the higher priority problems. But for clarification: the user problem I had in mind was not the validation of the XML provided by RDF/XML, but a possible validation of metadata provided in RDF/XML. For instance, the completeness of data or any other restriction logic the user might want to validate for instance with ISO Schematron, but XPath is usually week on RDF/XML. > 1.2.1 The use of rdf:about as elements anchors is incorrect. > > It should be as we discussed on the call today meta:id > Unfortunately there had been a renaming from meta:id to rdf:about as a last minute change made by the editors. (We wanted to keep the schedule and the spec took us more time than we earlier thought.) In the following that quick exchanged even result into some inconsistency at the metadata text fields, I will mention further below. > 1.2.2. > > """ When a text portion of the content is created from metadata or the text > portion is a metadata literal, which might reoccur in a RDF/XML file, the > text portion should handled by a metadata text field for reasons of data > integrity. """ > > I really don't understand either of these scenarios. This is where Svante > had said meta:about and meta:property were being relegated to and now I > read: > > """The optional attribute pair “rdf:about” and rdf:property. > rdf:about represents the RDF subject IRI of the RDF statement and > “rdf:property” represents the RDF predicate IRI.""" > > They are optional? What can we possibly use this > meta:text-set-get-field-whatever if the attributes needed to construct a > triple are optional? > I am sorry, here is the inconsistency caused by the renaming of meta:id to rdf:about in the last minute. The rdf:about attribute is mentioned twice, earlier one was a meta:id. The RDFa attributes are optional because instead of a RDF statement established by using RDFa, the RDF statement might be given by using the IRI of meta:id. (Although I do not want to suggest between xml:id and a meta:id here, I would like to separate this question from this mail.) > """ “meta:value-type” and “meta:value” """ > > value-type I'm assuming is analogous to meta:class discussed today in the > call. I think we don't need it (because we can specify that inside > RDF/XML). > No, "meta:value-type" might extend the existing ODF mechanism described in "Variable Value Types and Values". It is chapter 6.7.1 in the OpenDocument 1.1. specification. > with the same reasoning meta:value is not needed either since we can bind > that in the RDF/XML file. > see the chapter mentioned above. > """“meta:impl”""" > > This should not be needed either. We need to push this back to the RDF/XML. > The ODF application need to know which plugin usually take care of this text field. > """In case a text portion is autogenerated by the RDF plugin and shall > therefore only be changed from the RDF plugin, the should be marked as a > metadata text field. > is based on metadata and the text is autogenerated by the plugin take > responsibility of the handling from the content, two additional elements > are provided: 'meta:text-get' and 'meta:text-set'.""" > > I definitely need examples for this. If a text portion is auto-generated by > an RDF plugin then what is it exactly that we need to do? > I will give examples right away in a follow up mail. Regards, Svante > -Elias > > patrick@durusau.net wrote on 02/19/2007 04:51:31 PM: > > >> Greetings! >> >> Well, due largely to long hours and hard work by Svante Schubert we now >> have a draft proposal for the Metadata SC to discuss! >> >> No doubt we will all have comments and suggestions and I know everyone >> knows how to use the mailing list. ;-) >> >> Please send comments and suggestions along with *proposed* revision >> language keyed to the section that you think needs revision. That will be >> > a > >> great assistance in focusing discussion on particular parts of the >> proposal. >> >> Hope everyone is having a great day! >> >> Patrick >> >> -- Patrick Durusau* >> >> The document named Metadata_Model_Proposal (07-02-19-ODF-MetaData.odt) >> > has > >> been submitted by Patrick Durusau* to the OpenDocument - Metadata >> > document > >> repository. >> >> Document Description: >> Metadata Committee proposal for revision of metadata in ODF 1.2 >> >> View Document Details: >> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/office- >> metadata/document.php?document_id=22508 >> >> Download Document: >> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/office- >> metadata/download.php/22508/07-02-19-ODF-MetaData.odt >> >> >> PLEASE NOTE: If the above links do not work for you, your email >> > application > >> may be breaking the link into two pieces. You may be able to copy and >> > paste > >> the entire link address into the address field of your web browser. >> >> -OASIS Open Administration >>
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]