[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [office-metadata] Groups - Metadata SC meeting added
Bruce, Yes, you're right. I had gotten the impression that the RDF was doing to declare the semantics of the field, that is a generic field mechanism with a rule that whatever content is has is preserved on save so that a non-enabled application can see the data. Is there some other semantics that you think fields should have? (I have no real preference.) Hope you are having a great day! Patrick PS: Ok, everybody consider "field" as added to the top of the agenda for tomorrow. Bruce D'Arcus wrote: > > On Apr 3, 2007, at 7:37 PM, patrick@durusau.net wrote: > >> 2. Do we include suggestions for serialization? To be discussed. >> 3. How do we deliver non-normative documentation? To be discussed. >> 4. Deciding on the ODF RDF vocabulary. To be discussed. > > > The most critically-important TBD is the field. > > The above items are pretty much covered already (we agreed to put > documentation at the namespace URI), or can be pretty easily outside a > concall (the serialization suggestions). > > Bruce > > > > -- Patrick Durusau Patrick@Durusau.net Chair, V1 - Text Processing: Office and Publishing Systems Interface Co-Editor, ISO 13250, Topic Maps -- Reference Model Member, Text Encoding Initiative Board of Directors, 2003-2005 Topic Maps: Human, not artificial, intelligence at work!
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]