Re: [office-metadata] Groups - Metadata SC meeting added

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

On Apr 4, 2007, at 8:21 AM, Florian Reuter wrote:

> Hi,
>
> my current understanding of meta:text-field is as follows.

This is your interpretation -- which is a little closer to how I think 
of it -- but it's not how Svante has defined it.

> We have two different forms. One is "the classical" using an xml:id
>
> <text:meta-field xml:id="id1">
> [Replacement text]
> </text:meta-field>

I'd call this the "dumb container" form. Also, note that xml:id --> 
odf:id.

> in order to attach metadata to this field we use the <odf:Element 
> rdf:About="IRI1" odf:path=".." odf:id="id1"/> linking
> mechanism and make statements about IRI1 using RDF streams defines by 
> <odf:Entry/>.
>
> Second form is using an "inline" mechanism using the 
> <text:meta-field-description> (this is my name for it; I guess we
> have not yet a common name):

Right, the "inline" approach is how fields typically work.

> <text:meta-field>
> <text:meta-field-description office:process-content="false">
> [RDF/XML]
> </text:meta-field-description>
> [Replacement text]
> </text:meta-field>

Right, though I'm skeptical we need RDF there. Fields are pretty simple 
things. But in any case, this is the general idea I prefer.

But there's also the third approach, which is the current approach in 
the proposal! That would require using nested fields for my use case.

So we have three different ideas here. I'm asking us to choose *one* 
and to make sure it solves our use cases. If we stay with the current 
approach, we need to change the attributes so as not to reuse the meta 
attributes inappropriately.

Bruce