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

[Patrick Durusau <patrick@durusau.net>]

Greeting!

OK, let's walk through this together as this is *not* a TC charter issue.

1. Every standard has to declare (well good ones anyway) how certain 
control terms are used within the standard for interpretation.

2. Those terms are usually shall, shall not, etc.

3. Those terms apply *only* to interpretation of that standard.

4. Those rules of interpretation do *not* apply to other standards 
(unless they choose to adopt them).

What does that mean for ODF?

Take for example xml:id, which is going to appear in the metadata work.

The XML specification, with its rules of interpretation, determine the 
fundamental characteristics of xml:id. Such as what constitutes a valid 
xml:id.

ODF will be using xml:id and so the fundamental definition of xml:id is 
drawn from the XML specification. But, that does not mean that ODF has 
to use the same rules for interpretation as the XML specification.

ODF will declare where it is permissible to have an xml:id. That is not 
declared in the XML specification. And, ODF has adopted the ISO 
definitions for interpretatoin of its rules for the use of xml:id.

So, the definition of xml:id is governed by the XML specification and 
its rules of interpretation and the places where an xml:id can appear in 
an ODF document instance is governed by ODF and its rules of interpretaton.

That is to say that every standard gets to pick the rules by which it is 
to be interpreted.

The switch to the ISO definitions was as a result of comments received 
during the ISO process and the amended ODF version was approved with 
those changes by the TC.

I repeat, this has nothing to do with interoperability or the TC 
charter. It is solely an issue of a standard choosing the rules by which 
it will be interpreted.

Does that help?

Hope you are having a great weekend!

Patrick

PS: Compatibility with XML means only that we don't change any of the 
defined terms or rules of XML. We don't. Remember that XML is a 
metalanguage that is used to define other languages. All compatibility 
means is that we use the metalanguage as defined. Which we do.

marbux wrote:

> On 5/17/07, Patrick Durusau <patrick@durusau.net> wrote:
>
>> I don't think there is a problem.
>>
>> The XML standard *does not* require that any specification based upon it
>> to use RDC 2119 definitions.
>>
>> Those are cited solely for the purpose of interpretation of XML 1.0 (or
>> any other standard that cites them).
>>
>
> I'm still under the gun for time, so won't be able to address this
> much before the weekend.
>
> I am sorry that I missed the switch from RFC 2119 and the ISO
> definitions between ODF 1.0 and ODF 1.1. I think that rather than
> focusing on the conformance issue (ODF is an eXtension of XML, not a
> mere derivative), the shortcut answer is TC Charter requirements 2 and
> 4:
>
>>>>
>
> 2. it ***must*** be compatible with the W3C Extensible Markup Language
> (XML) v1.0 and W3C Namespaces in XML v1.0  specifications,
>
> 4 it ***must*** be friendly to transformations using XSLT or similar
> XML-based languages or tools,
>
> <<<
>
> As I read those requirements, the change from RFC 2119 definitions in
> ODF 1.0 to the ISO definitions in ODF 1.1 violated the quoted Charter
> requirements and required their amendment before the switch was made.
> I.e., the Charter and ODF 1.0 required interoperability and ODF 1.1
> departed from both, breaking interoperability.
>
> I've checked with Gary and he recalls no TC discussion of the change
> whatsoever. I did not have time to determine who was responsible and
> whether there was any relevant discussion on the TC, so will not
> further discuss that issue right now.
>
> To argue that the Charter requirements do not require the RFC 2119
> definitions would require that at least the following words to be
> interpreted as synonyms:
>
> * must = may
> * compatible = incompatible
> * friendly = unfriendly
> * intereoperability = non-interoperability
>
> In summary, the Charter requirements forbid ODF 1.2 from retaining the
> ISO definitions and require restoration of the XML 1.0/RFC 2119
> definitions. Unless the TC Charter is first amended, ODF 1.2 "must"
> use the definitions provided by RFC 2119 rather than the more
> permissive ISO definitions.
>
> Am I wrong?
>
> Best regards,
>
> Marbux
>
>
>

-- 
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!