Re: Clarifying text:meta-field problem [earlier "Groups - Metadata SC meeting added"]

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

more ...

On Apr 4, 2007, at 6:50 AM, Svante Schubert wrote:

>> I think Svante and Florian understand what I've been saying (in part 
>> as a result of some off-list discussion), but am not sure.
> I can not speak for Florian, but I have to admit, I am not able to 
> define your problem.
> Could you give it a further try, telling me what problem can not 
> currently be solved by our text:meta-field approach (e.g. using xml:id 
> and RDF/XML)?

Sigh ... this me repeating myself yet again, but I know it's hard to 
keep all straight for us all since we're busy, and we've got a lot of 
things going on in the proposal. So:

1) I want tect:meta-field to be precisely defined. It is not now. I 
suggested language for this recently. We have yet to discuss it.

2) I want the field to fulfill my use case. I am nervous that it does 
not now. While Svante suggested citations might be a "special case" I 
actually think that's wrong: I think it's a perfect test case for 
whether we get this right.

More specifically:

  - text:meta-field should not use reuse m:about and m:property as it 
does
  - IF we allow any attributes of this sort at all, then we need some 
discussion of nested fields, and we need to allow optional parameter 
attributes, and deal with awkward details like copy-paste, conversion 
in and out of other formats, etc.

OR ...

... we say all the field is encoded in RDF/XML and the field is just a 
dumb container.

Bruce