[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [office-metadata] meta-field and more...
Elias Torres wrote: > "Bruce D'Arcus" <bdarcus@gmail.com> wrote on 05/11/2007 09:37:40 AM: > > >> On May 11, 2007, at 8:47 AM, Svante Schubert wrote: >> >> >>> The reason to use a named graph as a placeholder for the file, was >>> to indirectly refer to the rdf:types of this file. >>> >>> <odf:Element odf:idref="id" rdf:about="uri:elementURI"> >>> <odf:belongsTo rdf:resource="http://someNamedGraph"/> >>> </odf:Element> >>> >>> <odf:MetaDataFile rdf:about="http://someNamedGraph"> >>> <rdf:type rdf:resource="uri:citation-type"/> >>> <rdf:type rdf:resource="uri:vcard-type"/> >>> </odf:MetaDataFile> >>> >>> As to me the same information set as >>> >>> <odf:Element odf:idref="id" rdf:about="uri:elementURI"> >>> <rdf:type rdf:resource="uri:citation-type"/> >>> <rdf:type rdf:resource="uri:vcard-type"/> >>> </odf:Element> >>> >>> >>> The relation between a text:meta-field to a plug-in is information >>> required by all ODF applications and defining it improves >>> interoperability. >>> >> For the citation case, why not: >> >> <odf:Element odf:idref="id" rdf:about="uri:elementURI"/> >> >> <b:Citation rdf:about="uri:elementURI"> >> ... >> </b:Citation> >> The b:Citation element is in the metadata manifest as well, right? How much of the citation data stored in the metadata manifest, or is it just the rdf:type? If it is just a rdf:type called b:citation, it could be written as well beyond the odf:Element itself. <odf:Element odf:idref="id" rdf:about="uri:elementURI"> <rdf:type rdf:resource="b:Citation"/> </odf:Element> Do I understand it correctly, you just prefer to have the rdf:type(s) directly in the element, instead of some indirection using a NamedGraph, which refers to the rdf:types of the metadata file(s) using the IRI of a named RDF graph. The rdf:type on the odf:Element seems easier to understand, although the rdf:types would be rewritten for each element. But this would work as well. >> <odf:MetaDataFile rdf:about="http://someNamedGraph"> >> <rdf:type rdf:resource="http://opendocument.org/Citation"/> >> </odf:MetaDataFile> >> >> ...? >> >> E.g. type the field itself. >> >> > Exactly what I suggested to Svante you would do. Elias, I understood your suggestion that the odf:MetaDataFile takes the elementURI as NamedGraph <odf:MetaDataFile rdf:about="uri:elementURI"> <rdf:type rdf:resource="http://opendocument.org/Citation"/> </odf:MetaDataFile> That would have the drawback that every element would have at least one metadata file. A lot of metadata files in case of citations.. > I stated that you have a > need and you would spec out what your implementors would do. You are > deciding to do solve your need via rdf:types. What we provide is the > extensible mechanism (thanks to RDF) to do so. Now, Svante wants the > general solution to that problem (which I believe exists and its needed) > but I think we would be going outside our responsibility and scope. I > suggested to Svante that it is a separate spec built on top of ODF metadata > that he and KOffice and others can agree. > > I think we have a really good and tight (yet general) specification. Any > more specific ontology classes and predicates will be looking for trouble > and decisions that we might wish left for a later time. > Elias do you believe a single ODF application is not in need of finding the binding between a text:meta-field and it's RDF/XML file(s)? In case every application is in need of making this binding persistent, would it not improve the interoperability to address it in the standard? Svante
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]