[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]