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

[marbux <marbux@gmail.com>]

On 5/16/07, Patrick Durusau <patrick@durusau.net> wrote:
> Actually "may" is defined in 1.2 Notation.

Oops. I missed that because I did a document search for XML 1.0 or RFC
2119. in the current ODF 1.2 draft. Any idea why the definitions
incorporated in ODF changed from RFC 2119 in ODF 1.0 to ISO/IEC
Directives Annex H in ODF 1.1? I'm guessing that it was an editorial
change requested in the ISO review process. Because of the ISO
requirement that those definitions be used (at least my hasty look
says that the Annex requires the ISO definitions to be used ). If so,
we've apparently got a rat's nest of a conflict between ISO
requirements and XML 1.0 requirements.

The definition of "may" in XML 1.0/RFC 2119 requires application
interoperability regardless of whether or not features are supported,
i.e., preservation of information required for interoperability. But
not so with the corresponding definition in the ISO Directives Annex H
 See id. at pg. 65
<http://publicaa.ansi.org/sites/apdl/Documents/Standards%20Activities/International%20Standardization/ISO/ISOIECDirectivesPart2pdfformat.pdf>.

There are differences in other definitions that may be significant as
well. I haven't evaluated them yet.

Patrick, are we stuck with a mess that can only be resolved between
W3C and ISO? At least the way it's looking so far, we're in a Catch 22
situation. If we go one way, we're non-conformant with XML 1.0; if we
go the other way, we're non-conformant with the ISO Directives. And to
achieve interop, we need to go with the XML 1.0/RFC 2119.

If you don't have an easy answer for this, I'll put some time into
digging. Unfortunately, I am going to be tied up at least most of the
day today (Thursday). I'll try to dig farther on this problem on
Friday, but I don't know how much time will be required to come up
with a solution or whether there is one.

It is kind of funny though, in a somewhat perverse sort of way. Kind
of like being caught between one gunman and another and one says he
will shoot you if you don't hold still and the other says he will
shoot you if you don't start walking.

Best regards,

Marbux


>
> > ...
> >
> >> 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.
> >
> Yes.
>
> > ...
> >
> >>> 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?).
> >
> I think I know what Svante intends but I am not sure the proposed
> language accomplishes that end.
>
> Does preserve mean that if I modify a metadata file that I have to
> preserve the original as well? I rather doubt that but it turns on the
> definition of "preserve," and that is a term we have never defined.
>
> How about:
>
> "Applications that do not read or write to one or more metadata files
> must preserve those files. Metadata files that are written to by some
> application must be saved as specified by that application."
>
> Does that capture what we want to say?
>
> Hope everyone is having a great day!
>
> Patrick
>
> --
> Patrick Durusau
> Patrick@Durusau.net
> Chair, V1 - Text Processing: Office and Publishing Systems Interface
> Co-Editor, ISO 13250, Topic Maps -- Reference Model
> Member, Text Encoding Initiative Board of Directors, 2003-2005
>
> Topic Maps: Human, not artificial, intelligence at work!
>
>