Re: [office-metadata] "Logical/abstract" vs. "physical" representation

["Bruce D'Arcus" <bdarcus@gmail.com>]

On Mar 1, 2007, at 10:21 AM, Elias Torres wrote:

> I didn't get a chance to respond to Michael's response on IRI  
> resolution in
> ODF, but in essence, I don't think it's enough. We need a URI  
> that'll be
> stable across .zip locations and that can be reused throughout the  
> document
> and others.

+1

> For example, if we were to give a new UUID to an ODF document and upon
> every save we bump a version number then we'd have a unique id  
> stable that
> we can point to in rdf:about statements all we want.

I absolutely think we need a smart base URI suggestion in the proposal.

It's an interesting question when a document ought to get a new URI.  
I was definitely thinking upon doing a save as, in part because you  
can then do automatic association of documents in the metadata  
(<xxxxxx> dcterms:versionOf <yyyyyyy>).

Perhaps you're right using a scheme that explicitly includes more  
fine-grained versioning makes sense. But would it make referencing  
documents more difficult?

In any case, we need to figure this out for the proposal.

Bruce