Re: [office-metadata] Suggested Changes on the Metadata proposal

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

Greetings!

here an updated list of issues to be discussed and editorial changes.

New suggested of changes to be discussed
=========================================

VI) Dropping non modification requirement
"Metadata files should not be modified unless the content of the
metadata file is changed.

This sentence describes application behavior. The described behavior is
moreover not essential, nor do we have something similar for ODF
content, like keeping the XML structure, when the document is not being
changed.



VII) Dropping the following sentence as we introduced no restriction on
RDF/XML.

"The OpenDocument format does not restrict RDF/XML elements or
attributes for metadata files except as defined for the OpenDocument
format."



VIII) Adjust 'shall' requirement to 'should' for xml:id

"All implementations SHALL preserve any xml:id attribute and its value
when present on any of the elements listed in 1.4.3."

Similar as other standards (e.g. CSS) we should not try to force
features by specification, but should let the market sort this out.
Moreover the specification could be interpreted that it is even
forbidding to delete the xml:id or its value, even when deleting the
content, therefore a 'SHOULD' is sufficient.



IX) Dropping paragraph about preserved content of text:meta-field

Asked to drop the following section:
"The generated content of a <text:meta-field> element SHALL be preserved
upon each “save” operation to facilitate use of a document with an
application that does not support generation of content from metadata."

As the text:meta-field chapter will be part of the field chapter of the
main spec, there exist already some default behavior for fields.
e.g. "The content of the element is the textual representation of the
current field value as it would be displayed or printed."

It questionable we need a special preservation application behavior for 
text:meta-field.



X) New 'pkg' prefix and namespace to make metadata model reusable even
for non ODF applications

We would have differentiate for the metadata manifest the existing
"odf:" prefixed RDF vocabulary into two vocabularies.
One representing the vocabularies necessary for all packages (e.g.
prefixed by "pkg:") and a second for the ODF relevant part (still
prefixed odf:).
All form odf: property/nodes will become pkg: property/nodes with the
exception of the ODF related elements, which are:

odf:ContentFile - the OpenDocument content.xml
odf:StylesFile - the OpenDocument styles.xml
odf:Element - an OpenDocument XML element




New added editorial changes:
======================

15) Changed wording from:
"A metadata file in an OpenDocument package is represented by a node of
class odf:File or by one of its subclasses odf:ContentFile,
odf:StylesFile or odf:MetadataFile. The relationship between a metadata
file and its package is expressed using the property  odf:hasPart."
to
"The resource of a file in an OpenDocument package is represented by an
element of class odf:File or by one of its subclasses odf:ContentFile,
odf:StylesFile or odf:MetadataFile. The relationship between a file and
its package is expressed using the property odf:hasPart."

16) Changed wording from:
"An rdf:about attribute defines the <odf:File> or one of its subclasses
by an IRI. In case of a metadata RDF/XML file this IRI represents a
named RDF graph."
to
"The identifier (IRI) of an odf:MetadataFile RDF node represents its
named RDF graph"    

17) Changed wording from:
"The relationship between a content.xml or styles.xml file and the
<odf:Element> node is expressed using the property <odf:hasPart>."
to
"Whether an element is contained in the content.xml or styles.xml is
described by the odf:hasPart property."

18)Exchange 'must' to 'shall'
"All implementations must preserve any xml:id attribute and its value
when present on any of the elements listed in 1.4.3.."
to
"All implementations shall preserve any xml:id attribute and its value
when present on any of the elements listed in 1.4.3."

19)Exchanged the order of two list elements, as one referred to the next
* m:data-value: The RDF object, if it appears. Otherwise, the literal
content of the OpenDocument element is the RDF object.
* m:data-type: Data type of m:data-value

Regards,
Svante