|
Congratulations to All!!
This is great news!!
John
On Jul 2, 2007, at 12:10 PM, Svante Schubert wrote:
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 |