Re: [office-metadata] Reuse of metadata proposal for non ODFapplications

[Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 - Hamburg <Michael.Brauer@Sun.COM>]

Hi Svante,

Svante Schubert wrote:
> Hi group!
> 
> There has been earlier some discussion and tendencies about making our 
> metadata proposal for packages more modular, more reusable for other non 
> ODF applications.
> As there were no opinions against this approach, we should come quickly 
> to a proposal how this can be established.
> Therefore I would like to give a suggestion, how this can be done with 
> minimal work-load for our group.
> 
> 
> The basic idea is to create from the current proposal document two 
> documents:
> 
> One new reference specification, which explains the metadata framework 
> for package formats without relation to ODF.
> This document would reside outside the ODF 1.2 specification.

Do you mean by this that it does not become a part of the ODF main 
specification (i.e. the first part of the ODF spec), but a separate 
document, like the formula or package specification? That's possible, 
but it of course still would be part of the ODF 1.2 specification.

However, I think what is essential is that those parts of the metadata 
specification that are not ODF specific, actually are specified without 
referencing the ODF spec. Whether they become a chapter of one of the 
three parts that we have already, or a separate one, actually does not 
make a large difference, since it could be referenced from other 
specification in both cases.

Because of the close relation of the meta data proposal to packages, I 
could imagine that we add the package related parts of the proposal to 
the package part of the spec. But as a separate chapter, that is 
independent of the existing package specification. This way we avoid 
having a large main specification document, and having two very small 
meta and package documents. If required, we may of course separate the 
two chapters into two documents later.

The correct place for the ODF related parts of the specification in my 
opinion is the main specification. This in particular applies to all 
those things that extend the ODF schema, like the in-content metadata 
and the new xml:ids.


> 
> As well the namespace of in content metadata would need adoption to be 
> reused in a unique way elsewhere.
> This is necessary for upcoming RDF package parser to identify package 
> metadata in a consistent way even in packages from non ODF applications.
> 
> Suggested changes in detail:
> 
> 1) In content metadata namespace change:
> http://docs.oasis-open.org/opendocument/meta#
> to
> http://docs.oasis-open.org/package/meta#

This URI misses the "opendocument" TC name identifier, and therefore 
seems not to be in alignment with the OASIS namespace policies. I'm not 
sure if it is really required to have two namespaces, but if so, they 
both would have to include the TC name.

Michael


-- 
Michael Brauer, Technical Architect Software Engineering
StarOffice/OpenOffice.org
Sun Microsystems GmbH             Nagelsweg 55
D-20097 Hamburg, Germany          michael.brauer@sun.com
http://sun.com/staroffice         +49 40 23646 500
http://blogs.sun.com/GullFOSS

Sitz der Gesellschaft: Sun Microsystems GmbH, Sonnenallee 1,
	   D-85551 Kirchheim-Heimstetten
Amtsgericht Muenchen: HRB 161028
Geschaeftsfuehrer: Marcel Schneider, Wolfgang Engels, Dr. Roland Boemer
Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Martin Haering