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

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

Elias,

I fear you mix a few things up. Let me just quickly clarify a few things 
and ask two questions in the end.

Elias Torres wrote:
> I can't give my opinion always because of time (and travel). But Svante
> knew clearly well after spending almost 2 hours on the phone together that
> we did not agree. 
We talked mainly about the data-value attributes, where we agree on a 
solution and we disagreed upon the binding of the text:meta-filed with 
it's xml:id to a meta file.
In other words the binding between an odf:element to the metadatafile in 
the metadata manifest.
> I sent a few notes on the issues explaining my side of
> the problem and I don't think I have seen Svante's refutal or alternative
> except for what he added directly to the draft specification. This is where
> I have the problem.
>   
My earlier approach  - that you refused - that was discussed in the 
meeting 9th May, the day where we later phoned,  was to relate the 
odf:element by a property to the namedGraph of the file.
My alternative was to add a rdf:type property to elements similar as to 
the files of the packages.
The rdf:type for files of the manifest is quite old and can be first 
found in the spec of the 22nd of March.
The change from rdf:type to odf:type was not part of our discussion on 
the phone and somehow a mistake, but we all agree on the rdf:type naming.

My questions:
Do we still agree on rdf:types for odf:files (or their subclasses 
odf:meta-files)?
Would a similar rdf:type for odf:elements be acceptable for you?

Enjoy your travel,
Svante