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

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

On Mar 5, 2007, at 9:53 AM, Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 -  
Hamburg wrote:

> Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
>> 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.
>
> To be honest, I don't know whether one should really require that  
> all documents get a base IRI different than the document location.  
> I suggest we again leave it up the the implementations to provide  
> such a base IRI when required.

The point is, for the metadata system, they are *always* required if  
we want things to work reliably.

And we better well specify that the document/base URI needs to be  
stable (which file paths are typically not) and globally unique, and  
give developers some suggested options.

That wouldn't preclude them using a file path as the document URI,  
but they would know why it's a bad idea at least.

Bruce