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

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

On Mar 5, 2007, at 9:24 AM, Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 -  
Hamburg wrote:

> Yes. But I thought we have already a proposal for this (#1 in
>
> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office-metadata/200702/ 
> msg00160.html

OK, so to bring this back around to Florian's original concerns,  
here's the relevant bit:

"The base IRI of the document is the one specified by [the
manifest.xml], or the location of the package, if the manifest does not
specify a base IRI. A relative-path reference (as described in §6.5 of
[RFC3987]) that occurs in a file that is contained in a package has to
be resolved exactly as it would be resolved if the whole package gets
unzipped into a directory at the location specified by the base IRI."

Florian? Elias?

I guess the only point of debate here would be that the "or location  
of the package" option might be too fragile to be useful, breaking  
object-subject references whenever a file path changes.

E.g. we might require a URI for the document. Such a requirement  
would only attach to 1.2 compliant applications I guess (ones that  
support the basics of the new metadata system), which would not be  
onerous.

> So, what is missing (except a detailed proposal by which attribute  
> the base IRI may be defined in the manifest)?

See above. Not sure if there's anyhing else to resolve.

Bruce