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

[Patrick Durusau <patrick@durusau.net>]

Elias,

Noted.

It would be helpful if we knew your opinion about the question that was 
asked.

Hope you are having a great day!

Patrick

PS: Yes, it would be better if the editors (myself included) were more 
systematic about posing issues rather than just making changes. I will 
try to do better as will Svante. If you like, we can post these as 
issues for the current draft and formally note them for discussion next 
week. I suppose I can also list a whole series of editorial nits for 
formal approval as well.

Elias Torres wrote:

>Patrick Durusau <patrick@durusau.net> wrote on 05/17/2007 05:10:31 AM:
>
>  
>
>>Elias,
>>
>>Elias Torres wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>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.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>Under 1.1.1 Declaration of Metadata Files in the Metadata Manifest, File
>>Types, where it reads:
>>
>>***
>>
>>One or more <odf:type> property elements specify the metadata type of a
>>metadata file. The property may be used to relate a metadata file to an
>>RDF application.
>>
>>***
>>
>>And under OpenDocument Elements, where it reads:
>>
>>***
>>
>>The <odf:Element> element can be bound to a metadata file by the
>>odf:belongsTo property attribute. The odf:belongsTo property attribute
>>value is the IRI of a named RDF graph.
>>
>>***
>>
>>The purpose as I understand it was to assist applications in associating
>>an RDF application with particular metadata.
>>
>>BTW, this has been discussed and you took the position that we should
>>specify less rather than more and to allow implementation experience to
>>decide how that should be accomplished.
>>
>>    
>>
>
>Discussed or agreed upon? I looked through the minutes and did not see
>anything about this. I repeat, I do not like working on this, if a new
>specification feature/paragraph/etc that has not received consensus from
>the group and the only two involved parties discussing it are in clear
>disagreement. Then, if the one who decides, does just because he's the
>editor, I'm quite dissatisfied with the approach. This is something I
>clearly remember asking during the call when we decided editors and what
>their role and authority was over the spec and the response I received was
>not what's happening today. If the editors have total control, I don't want
>to be a part of this. I know this may sound a bit too precipitated
>especially now that we are 90% of the way, but I want to express this
>anyway, even though it will be completely ignored, given the current wave
>of actions.
>
>-Elias
>
>
>
>
>  
>

-- 
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!