"Logical/abstract" vs. "physical" representation

["Florian Reuter" <freuter@novell.com>]

Hi,

I have problems with the xml:id/rdf:about approach. I really dislike rdf:about="content.xml#id001" RDF statements, because these rely on the .ZIP structure. But the .ZIP structure is not always present. E.g. when the ODF is represented as FlatXML or represented in a database etc.

I believe we make a big mistake if we bind ODF to close the .ZIP representation. Please note that OOXML has this “abstract view of a package”. Here are some quotes from the OOXML packaging spec you may find interesting:
<quote>
The package provides a convenient way to distribute documents with all of their component pieces, such as images, fonts, and data. Although this Open Packaging specification defines a single-file package format, the package model allows for the future definition of other physical package representations. [Example: A package could be physically represented in a collection of loose files, in a database, or ephemerally in transit over a network connection. end example]
</quote>

We have to find a way to identify objects which do not rely on the .ZIP package representation. Otherwise we limit ODF to the representation of a .ZIP file.

Additionally please note that ODF currently has at least to views of a physical representation of an ODF document: stored in a .ZIP file and “Flat XML”. So the concept of an “logical/abstract representation” and a “physical representation” is not new to ODF.

My problem is that our discussion is to closely bound to the .ZIP physical representation.

I would very much like to differentiate between a “logical/abstract representation” and a “physical representation”.

~Florian