OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

office-metadata message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: Re: [office-metadata] Persistence of the relation between text:meta-field and it's metadata.



On May 16, 2007, at 9:18 AM, Svante Schubert wrote:

> 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?

Because we do not know which is the best approach absent actual  
implementation experience.

Given that Elias has by far the most implementation experience in  
this area, I think we should trust his judgment that we should wait.

Perhaps if Elias is there today he just take a few minutes to explain  
his position again? I really don't want to spend the entire call  
talking about this though. We need a tight agenda where we can wrap  
our work (at least WRT to concalls) up today if possible.

> 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.

The question here is pretty simple: do we standardize this now (when  
there is some uncertainty), or do we do it later once we have some  
implementation experience?

There's a related question, which is whether we can think of  
something between standardization and non-standardization.

Bruce



[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]