Re: [office-metadata] fields proposal

[Bruce D'Arcus <bruce.darcus@OpenDocument.us>]

On Mar 26, 2007, at 6:14 AM, Svante Schubert wrote:

>> 2) a new generic metadata field -- what we now call text:meta-field 
>> -- should not use the xml:id + RDF/XML approach to encoding the basic 
>> logic of fields; rather, the URI(s) for the subject(s) it references 
>> should be included in the field (in content).
> Other elements receive a xml:id to be linked / referenced at - not 
> only by metadata- but in general. I doubt you would like to miss this 
> nice feature for your citation field (and the metadata fields).

I'm not saying xml:id is not allowed, but I am saying it is not allowed 
as a mechanism to link field and RDF resources.

OR, it is the only allowed solution (though I dislike this).

>> 3) if we require a URI (and allow optional parameters), we should 
>> allow multiple URIs
> The usage of multiple URIs - (as required by your example later) -  is 
> not the only way to solve the problem, nesting text:meta-fields could 
> be a different solution.

Correct. I just want us to identify the problem and solve it.

> A further more generic solution could be the usage of RDF/XML. All the 
> required further information as the URIs and the later mentioned 
> parameters could be expressed by it. But you want to disallow this. 
> Why? I do not see any problem in using RDF/XML.

To me, as I've said before, I have what is basically a hunch that it's 
a bad idea to put crucial information outside the field. In this 
approach, the field would just be a dumb container.

What happens, for example, if I copy-and-paste the field between 
documents?

> Although it could be nice to have always similar design between 
> citation fields and other metadata fields, this does not weight so 
> much as to restrict all plug-in vendors using metadata fields to use a 
> metadata design similar to the citation field. Especially when you run 
> easily into problems expanding the element set of the 
> metadata/citation field for further informations (RDF statements).
> Could it be that RDF/XML was not chosen for the design of citation 
> fields as the fields were created before we agreed on using RDF/XML?

Yes, this is true, but I still think it's a good design approach, and 
has the secondary benefit that it fits how OOXML does it.

> Now you are able to specify a RDF vocabulary for the parameter that 
> are still missing instead using an ODF element/attribute.
>
> The main question you triggered is: What kind of RDF statements of a 
> metadata field have to be in the content?

Right.

> To answer this question, we have to figure out  when we have to put 
> metadata into the content and when to put it into RDF/XML.

Right.

> I assume there is only one rule:

I'll look at this later.

Bruce