[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]