Topics from my side to be discussed

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

Hi!

patrick@durusau.net wrote:
> Greetings!
>
> I'm baaack! ;-)
>   
Great do have you back!
> I have some comments that I will be sending in the morning on the current
> draft and I think we are very close to finishing the work.
>
> Note that I have suggested that we *not* have examples in the text per se,
> but that such will be needed to make our case both to the TC and to guide
> others in using the metadata features of the new proposal. So dust off your
> examples and get ready to produce an SC document that shows off the
> capabilities of the new metadata approach. 
>
> For the meeting tomorrow we need to resolve any remaining issues (I think
> Svante has rethought how we should do the manifest for example) and any
> other items. 
>   
I would like to have feed-back on the following topics:

1)
The IRI of odf:baseID seems to be redundant with the rdf:about of the 
manifest itself.
Although odf:baseID is more verbose than rdf:about, the duplication of 
the baseID seems erraneous.
The current state is that odf:baseID has been removed

2) If there is a subClass of odf:File called odf:Content representing a 
content file, what is the value of rdf:about?
Where odf:Content is subclass of odf:File.
Like   odf:Content a rdfs:Class; rdfs:subClassOf odf:File .
similar to :Woman a rdfs:Class; rdfs:subClassOf :Person .
The current state is that only odf:File exists.

Svante