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

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

Bruce,

Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
>
> 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.
Do we really need further implementation experience to specify 
informations to give ODF applications the opportunity to relate an 
xml:id of the text:meta-field to metadata files?
This argument to wait for implementation experience could be given for 
the whole data of the metadata manifest.
Why allowing odf:type on files and not on elements?
We should be able to draw a line based on arguments traceable by outsiders.

Svante