Re: [office-metadata] Export / Import of metadata

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

"Bruce D'Arcus" <bruce.darcus@OpenDocument.us> wrote on 03/01/2007 08:22:01
AM:

>
> On Mar 1, 2007, at 7:23 AM, Svante Schubert wrote:
>
> >  I propose to define the first short variation to be able to directly
> > map a literal from ODF as RDF object literal. The second seems
> > unnecessary large, as the XML subtree is not required and if it would
> > be required the xml:id approach would work.
>
> So just to be clear, you are saying the default data-type for
> in-content statements shall be plain text.

Right. I think that it's what Svante is trying to say.

>
> >  We might add later further RDFa attributes, which define the
> > data-type. But waiting until RDFa is further matured (standarized)
> > might make sense.
>
> I'm confused. I thought we made it totally clear there needs to be some
> way to data-type a statement. As Elias said, among the list of
> data-types supported must be a plain text option. As RDFa does it, the
> default data-type is an xml literal.
>
> I actually don't care that much, except to say that if there's MathML
> or something included in my literal, it should be output as an XML
> literal.

I agree. I think that removing XMLLiteral support is unnecessary. We need
to support XMLLiteral for all kinds of XML vocabularies that can be
embedded or if a fragment of the ODF document needs to be referenced or
talked about.

The big question I guess is what is our default? In RDFa it matters a lot
because authors do it by hand on existing HTML, but in our case it might
not matter much.

-Elias

>
> Bruce
>