Re: [office-metadata] summarizing recent suggestions

[Elias Torres <eliast@us.ibm.com>]

"Bruce D'Arcus" <bruce.darcus@OpenDocument.us> wrote on 02/28/2007 09:29:05
AM:

>
> On Feb 28, 2007, at 9:18 AM, Elias Torres wrote:
>
> >> I also have no strong opinion on this. So just take this as some
> >> suggestions, except that we should style with the "text" namespace for
> >> consistency reasons.
> >
> > I'll ask again, isn't there already a field element in the
> > text:namespace
> > that we can re-use instead of creating a new one?
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong Michael, but no. Rather, there are hard-coded
> text:* fields like "text:date" and such. We need something generic.
>
> ...
>
> >> Yes, it's some kind of shorthand. But is is the notation we are using
> >> already, so I would prefer to stay with it, if there are no strong
> >> reasons not to do so.
> >
> > It's exactly how RDFa uses and depends on QNames.
>
> "Depends" on?

Yes. Not everything has to be a CURIE. A CURIE is needed for blank nodes
mostly and a few other places, but for example the @property and @about can
take a QName as is. Hence, I say it depends on. It's still not a 100% RDFa
will adopt CURIE.

>
> It's just this is a big can-of-worms. In fact, RDFa does not use
> QNames, but rather CURIEs. And using QNames in content is *generally*

k. It's a can of worms. I'll leave it as that.

> bad practice. Indeed, we had a long thread on this WRT to the new
> formula stuff and the upshot was that they changed away from using them
> to some other short-hand.

I'm not sure there's concrete evidence that it's problem, but simply
perceived as taboo.

>
> I don't care if we use them, but we just need to be sure about it, and
> I don't think we should require them (not allow full URIs)?

In RDFa you can always place either the full URI or the QName. I don't see
why not.

>
> Bruce
>