Re: [office-metadata] Further examples needed

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

Elias,

On Mar 9, 2007, at 1:07 PM, Elias Torres wrote:

>> I'm not sure if Elias (?) meant to suggest we need something so  
>> formal
>> in our proposal as an OWL ontology*, but we at minimum need a list of
>> properties we'd consider a baseline.
>
> An OWL ontology would just be the properties and maybe a class or  
> two. No
> biggie.

Right.

>> * it seems to me we could just have that as supplement at the HTTP
>> address the namespace URI would resolve to?
>
> We could do that too.

Part of what I'm thinking about here (and ties to other thread of  
course) is that if we're smart with the way we do this, we can have a  
tight focused proposal that gets added to the formal spec, but that  
we have the namespace URIs as a way of augmenting that stuff with  
further (and maybe much less tech-spec sounding, more hacker- 
friendly) documentation, schemas, and so forth.

We could then in essence present that as best practice for other  
developers who want to add extensions and such based on metadata.

Could be good for my citation stuff, for example; have the cite  
namespace with some resolvable URI, and then post some information  
there about what vocabularies are recommended. Likewise for the basic  
meta prefix namespace.

In other words, we've always talked about non-normative supplemental  
documentation for this kind of thing, but we'd now make it sensibly  
web-resolvable.

We'd need a good URI for that in a place where we could easily update  
content though. Maybe:

	http://opendocument.xml.org/meta

... or something like that (not sure with potential issues with that  
particular subdomain).

Just a thought ...

Bruce