Re: [office-metadata] question for Elias on rdf:type/odf:type

[Elias Torres <eliast@us.ibm.com>]

I had not seen that. Where will this be used? In the manifest? If so, we
don't need odf:type, we need to use rdf:type, much preferred.

Why is this being introduced? I don't think we can be introducting stuff at
every meeting, especially if we haven't agreed on it. Did everyone agree to
it?

I really don't like the way we work, where the editors add everything they
want to the specification and then we have to search for changes to keep
track of them and then decide or argue for something to excluded as opposed
for it to be included.

Where are we?

-Elias

"Bruce D'Arcus" <bdarcus@gmail.com> wrote on 05/16/2007 11:17:48 AM:

>
> Elias,
>
> I just asked the question during the call about why we have an
> odf:type property rather than just reuse rdf:type.
>
> Can you confirm whether you agree with the idea that we need to
> define a new odf:type property, and if yes, why?
>
> I always thought it was a bad idea to use your own type property.
>
> Bruce