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

[robert_weir@us.ibm.com]

Come on now.  Svante giving a list
of suggested changes for discussion.  No war crimes have been committed.
 Everyone is entitled to make proposals and have them discussed.  We
don't need to agree with the proposals, but I don't want to have an environment
where we can't have an open & public airing of technical proposals
without fear of intimidation.

Put another way, Marbux.  I don't
mind if your dial goes up to 11, but can we at least turn up the volume
more gradually? ;-)

-Rob
___________________________

Rob Weir
Software Architect
Workplace, Portal and Collaboration Software
IBM Software Group

email: robert_weir@us.ibm.com
phone: 1-978-399-7122
blog: http://www.robweir.com/blog/

marbux <marbux@gmail.com> wrote on 06/28/2007
10:12:11 PM:

> To all those who said we were being unreasonable to decide that we
> were no longer willing to place our faith in Sun's leadership of the
> OpenDocument Technical Committee, we give you Exhibit A. Sun 
> Microsystems is the enemy of ODF interoperability. It will be 
> interesting to see how those who eschew confrontation deal with 
> these proposals, which will -- if adopted -- eviscerate the Metadata
> SC's work, allowing Sun to break interoperability with other applications.

> On 6/27/07, Svante Schubert <Svante.Schubert@sun.com>
wrote:
> 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