Re: [office-metadata] Re: preserving metadata (was deadlines?)

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

it's seems my membership change is delayed a bit ...

On May 16, 2007, at 5:42 AM, marbux wrote:

> On 5/13/07, Bruce D'Arcus <bruce.darcus@opendocument.us> wrote:
>> I'm not clear what you're objecting to. Is it this sentence?
>>
>> "The attribute xml:id may occur on the following OpenDocument 
>> elements:"
>>
>> Would it be resolved by adding an additional phrase?
>>
>> "Xml:id attributes shall be preserved, unless their containing element
>> is removed." or some such?
>>
>
> Sorry for the delay getting back to you. It is that sentence that I am
> focusing on. Your suggestion would cure part of the problem, although
> I'll propose a different solution for that aspect.
>
> But I'm also not clear on the intent of the sentence because the word
> "may" is ambiguous in context. E.g., if the intent is to say that the
> Xml:id attribute can *only* be used with the listed elements, that
> isn't what "may" means in context. With that intent, we might better
> say, "The attribute xml:id may occur **only** on the following
> OpenDocument elements."

It's to say that on those elements that xml:id is allowed on, use of 
xml:id is optional. Otherwise, every single element (in the list of 
allowed elements) would require an xml:id.

> On the other hand, if the intent is that implementation of the Xml:id
> attribute is truly optional, then we're into the issue of preservation
> of the attributes because ODF lacks any definition for "may."

No, that's not the intent. If there's an xml:id attribute, it MUST be 
preserved.

...

> For that reason, my suggested resolution on the preservation of the
> XML:id attributes is to recommend to the TC that it amend the
> conformance section to require: [i] that implementing applications
> must produce XML that is conformant with the XML 1.0 ISO standard;
> [ii] expressly make the definitions provided by RFC 2119 (incorporated
> by XML 1.0) applicable throughout the specification; and [iii] place
> an informative note where appropriate in the Metadata section and
> elsewhere reminding that the definition of "may" in RFC 2119 requires
> that implementing applications must be prepared to interoperate,
> whether they support particular features or not, then note the
> importance of element, attribute, and metadata preservation to that
> requirement.

This is beyond our (SC) scope then.

...

>> The statement about preserving RDF/XML files is as follows:
>>
>> "An OpenDocument package may contain an arbitrary number of metadata
>> files. The content of the metadata files shall conform to the 
>> [RDF-XML]
>> specification. Applications that read and write documents should
>> preserve all metadata files. Metadata files should not be modified
>> unless the content of the metadata file is changed."
>>
>> Suggest how you would change it and we can talk about it.
>>
>
> How about changing "Metadata files *should* not be modified unless" to
> "Metadata files *must* not be modified unless"? Is there any valid
> reason to modify metadata files other than to change the content?

That language is indeed a bit bizarre (the final sentence is circular, 
isn't it?).

...

Bruce