OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

office-metadata message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


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


Hi group,

The following issue still needs our attention and is longing for an 
agreement on our upcoming metadata call on Wednesday.

+++++++++


        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

+++++++++

Regarding the namespace we already started some discussion, I now 
continue it in the following:


Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 - Hamburg wrote:
>
> Svante Schubert wrote:
>> 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.
Yes.
>
> 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.
Agreed.
>
> 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.
Patrick and I had the same impression.
>
>
>>
>> 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.
Thanks for pointing this out, Michael.
Therefore a simple new suggestion would be

http://docs.oasis-open.org/opendocument/meta#
to
http://docs.oasis-open.org/opendocument/package/meta#

Any further/better suggestions regarding the namespace or annotations on 
the issue?

Best regards,
Svante


[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]