Persistence of the relation between text:meta-field and it's metadata.

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

I fear this point is still to be considered open.

We once agreed on the odf:type for odf:Files to sort out the 
responsibility for a metadata file.
Why it is it an overspecification to add odf:type to odf:Element, or was 
it the next step, the abbreviation to give a relation by 
odf:belongsTo="uri:NamedGraph" between the element and the types of a 
certain file (or set of file) that causes the disagreement?

The persistence of the relation between a text:meta-field and it's 
metadata is required by all application and should therefore be part of 
our standard.
Possibly we can gather some pro/con before the meeting.

Svante


Elias Torres wrote:
>> 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
>>     
>
> I don't deny the need. I really support it. I just don't want us specifying
> it right now. I have worked on a few iterations of this problem trying to
> give named graph capabilities to client applications and there's no right
> answer yet. I'd be very afraid to over-specify that right now and have
> practice show us something different later. Let's see what people do with
> our spec as is.
>
> -Elias