[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [office-metadata] comments on latest draft
Bruce, many thanks for your detailed and helpful feedback. Bruce D'Arcus wrote: > OK, comments: > > Section 1.1 > =========== > > 1. "number metadata" --> "number of metadata" Fixed > > 2. "Applications that read and write document should preserve all > metadata files." > > Sorry, that's not good enough. All ODF 1.2 compliant applications > "shall" preserve the files. In ODF features are in general marked as "may" or "should" and not as "shall". We can hardly make an exception for metadata, especially as we have no consistency concept so far, simply keeping them won't be sufficient, sometimes a removal might be even better. > > 3. Question: do we want to offer suggestions on RDF/XML serialization > to make it friendlier to XML tools? Good point. We shall we bring this up on today's call if we agree in giving a serialization suggestion. For instance, a limitation of RDF/XML attribute / element changeability would be helpful. > > Section 1.1.1 > ============= > > 4. The meta:category example should use the new URI for vCard (the > older one is being deprecated). > > <http://www.w3.org/2006/vcard/ns#> It was not a deprecated link of vCard, but a link to a vCard encoding in RDF/XML. But after reading your given link, I agree that the change makes sense, as it describes a new RDF concept of vCard, therefore FIXED. > > 5. This is a big question: does it really make sense to create and > maintain a RELAX NG schema for an RDF manifest? Also, given the > built-in extensibility, should it be useable for any file? Is the > intention to transition to this new, more flexible, representation > over time? We should bring this topic up in today's call. > > 6. Under "Metadata file entry" the phrase "inherent semantics" is > unclear. The phrase was overtaken from the ODF 1.1 specification chapter 17.7.3 File Entry. It means that by providing information (file-entry) on a directory the information is inherited to all of documents in the directory. > > 7. top of p6, the RDF/XML example has an incorrect "xml:about" attribute. Fixed > > Section 1.2.1 > ============= > > 8. First sentence is unclear. As there was no suggested wording, I changed it to: "The xml:id attribute is allowed on the set of OpenDocument elements described below. The attribute gives the element a unique identification in the XML file and works as an anchor to create references to the element." > > 9. the list item "table cells" has the incorrect element (also on > another page) Fixed > > Section 1.2.2 > ============= > > 10. The list item 1 is unclear. I will discuss this with Patrick. Have you a suggestion? > > 11. The list item 2 might include reference to the fact that the > meta:label may do more than just display, but might offer other > functionality? I am not sure if I understand, what you mean. Have you got a suggested wording? > > 12. The discussion of RDF literals might reference the relevant place > in the RDF spec, rather than (or in addition to) the XPath reference? Right, I made a note, I will to the Refs together in the end. > > So I think the proposal is definitely looking better, though we still > have a few big and little things to resolve. I did not list the > business about the document URI, but I consider that really important. I agree. I changed the above matters mentioned as FIXED. Before I did this I committed all the changes on the document, so you will see only the above changes in the change record. Patrick or myself will notify, when we uploaded the new document. Thanks again for your feedback, Bruce! Svante > > Bruce >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]