Re: Updated example

[Bruce D'Arcus <bdarcus@gmail.com>]

On Jun 21, 2007, at 10:20 AM, Svante Schubert wrote:

> There are more restrictions aside of odf:idf-ref:
>
> First aside of idref the path of the odf:File is releveant.that is  
> related by a odf:hasPart

Sure.

> Second odf:Citation is of type odf:Element as well. Remember it is  
> just a rdf:Description with more rdf:types
>    <rdf:type  
> rdf:resource="http://docs.oasis-open.org/opendocument/meta/ 
> package#Citation"/>, but it has as well the
>    <rdf:type  
> rdf:resource="http://docs.oasis-open.org/opendocument/meta/ 
> package#Element"/>

Svante: I know this! My point is the second type statement is not  
necessary. We're not proposing to enforce that any reference to an ODF  
content node include this type; are we?

> Third, odf: is meant to be a vocabulary that describes the  
> OpenDocument format, as long citation is not specified we need some  
> other namespace.

Yes, I think we might as well standardize this part while we're at it.  
I will suggest as much. The TC approved a citation field, so if I'm  
going to suggest dropping it, I want something to take its place.

What namespace it is in doesn't matter that much to me, but I do think  
the "Reference" class ought to be fairly generic.

Finally, if the odf prefix is meant to relate on to the package, then  
we should change the suggest prefix:

	odfp?
	package?

... I don't know.

Bruce