Re: [office-metadata] Proposal on new Meta Manifest due to last call'sdiscussion

[Svante Schubert <Svante.Schubert@Sun.COM>]

Hi Bruce,

Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
> A few issues with this example:
>
>             <dct:hasPart>
>                 <odf:Element odf:idref="someID">
>                     <owl:sameAs 
> rdf:resource="afdc453c-5dc8-4988-8dab-fc378bd9e73d"/>
>                     <owl:sameAs 
> rdf:resource="043fe0de-e9db-11db-8314-0800200c9a66"/>
>                 </odf:Element>
>             </dct:hasPart>
>
> First, you need a "urn:uuid" in front of those uuids.
Correct, these are generated UUID without the URN prefix "urn:uuid:".
>
> Second, why the owl:sameAs properties?
The RDF/XML files use IRIs for ODF elements, right?
The IRI of such an ODF element is binded the content ODF XML element by 
using odf:Element with a certain odf:idref referencing to an xml:id, 
which is part of a certain odf:File.
Therefore the odf:element is identical (owl:sameAs) to one of those IRIs 
being used.

Although we could say as well:

<dct:hasPart>
    <odf:Element 
rdf:about="urn:uuid:043fe0de-e9db-11db-8314-0800200c9a66" 
odf:idref="someID"/>
</dct:hasPart>

>
> Third, this ...
>
>             <dct:references>
>                 <odf:Element 
> rdf:resource="043fe0de-e9db-11db-8314-0800200c9a66"/>
>             </dct:references>
>
> ... is incorrect. Should be:
>
>             <dct:references 
> rdf:resource="043fe0de-e9db-11db-8314-0800200c9a66"/>
Yes, of course.

After doing these fixes, don't you think it is more verbose than mixing 
Manifest and ODF nodes as we did before?

Svante