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 ODF applications


Svante,

Svante Schubert wrote:
> 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
>
Sounds like a plan to me!

The ability to re-use the metadata mechanism with non-ODF files is an 
important one.

> +++++++++
>
> 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?
>
Those work for me.

Hope you are having a great day!

Patrick

> Best regards,
> Svante
>
>

-- 
Patrick Durusau
patrick@durusau.net
Chair, V1 - US TAG to JTC 1/SC 34
Acting Convener, JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3 (Topic Maps)
Co-Editor, ISO/IEC 13250-1, 13250-5 (Topic Maps)
Co-Editor, OpenDocument Format (OASIS, ISO/IEC 26300)



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