Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
83cd7a3e1ff20a8b32c29e2f57452168@gmail.com"
type="cite">So the TC approved the metadata proposal in principle
today (great!). We just need to do the remaining changes. I expect
Svante and/or Patrick will do this with a change-tracked version of the
submitted proposal.
Here's what I suggest:
1) I was fine with all editorial suggestions Svante posted, except for
the ones about preservation of attributes and files. I'll deal with
that issue below, but suggest we just make the other changes. That gets
us 98% or so to done.
2) I suggested requiring xml:id on text:meta-field. I can't really
think of any reason not to require it. Is that OK? This would require a
schema change (see TC list post).
+1
83cd7a3e1ff20a8b32c29e2f57452168@gmail.com"
type="cite">
3) On preservation of xml:id:
I agree after the lengthy discussion on the main list and on the call
today that this is a really tricky issue to define with any sort of
precision that actually achieves what we want to achieve without
unintended consequences. I would thus be fine with the following
language:
"All implementations SHOULD preserve any xml:id attribute and its value
when present on any of the elements listed in 1.4.3. If an applications
changes an xml:id attribute value, it SHOULD update any associated
bindings in the metadata manifest to maintain referential integrity."
+1
83cd7a3e1ff20a8b32c29e2f57452168@gmail.com"
type="cite">
As we discussed, the language of "should" is already fairly strong,
basically requiring conformance unless there's an explicit reason not
to do so.
We might want something similar for the metadata attributes (m:about,
etc.).
4) on the non-modification statement:
"Metadata files should not be modified unless the content of the
metadata file is changed."
Svante suggested dropping it altogether. I'd like something like this
instead:
"All implementations SHOULD preserve metadata statements and their
associated RDF graphs stored in the file package."
83cd7a3e1ff20a8b32c29e2f57452168@gmail.com"
type="cite">
That's not quite right, but I can't think of anything better. It at
least gets away from worrying about the specific structure of the
files, and focusses on the content, and it make implementors aware of
the issue even if they don't implement metadata support.
+1 with slightly change..
There had been confusion on this proposed change, as the preceding
sentence of the dropped line had not been repeated.
"Applications that read and write documents should
preserve all metadata files. Metadata files should
not be modified unless the content of the metadata file is changed."
The first sentence was never meant to be dropped and is still valid. I
would adapt the first part of your suggestion for the following
wording, to make it more precise, what 'preserve' means to us.
"Applications that read and write documents should
preserve all metadata files with their named RDF graphs they
represent."
I assume we can drop par regarding the statements, as they are what the
graph is made of.
regards,
Svante
|