Re: [Fwd: Re: [office-metadata] Reuse of metadata proposal for nonODF applications]

[Patrick Durusau <patrick@durusau.net>]

Bruce,

Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
> On 8/23/07, Patrick Durusau <patrick@durusau.net> wrote:
>   
>> Svante,
>>
>> I think you and Bruce are missing each other.
>>
>> Bruce, as I understand the request, you want to add:
>>
>>     
>>> What I am suggesting, then, is formally defining a field in OWL:
>>>
>>> odf:Field a owl:Class .
>>>
>>> .. which then allows me to subclass that:
>>>
>>> odf:Citation a owl:Class ;
>>>     rdfs:subclassOf odf:Field .
>>>
>>> Likewise, I have pointed out that generic properties for the field
>>> like prefix and suffix are perfectly in order.
>>>       
>> Which is *not* defining all the semantics of a citation but merely
>> allows you a place to store them. Yes?
>>     
>
> It gives me some generic classes to extend, and some generic
> properties to use. In that case, implementing the citation case is
> just a simple extension to that generic support.
>
>   
OK, let me try again. ;-)

So you want:

generic class to extend. (that's in the OWL ontology) Yes?

and

prefix and suffix for the field (that in the Relax-NG for the 
<text:meta-field> element) Yes?

I think we sometimes miss each other because we presume that everyone 
remembers all of our prior posts. I do read every post but I can't say 
that I always remember them as clearly as their authors. ;-)

Now, assume that I got a yes to each of the items above, I think 
Svante's question is:

Ok, but people may want more than prefix and suffix attributes on the 
<text:meta-field> element or at least associated with it.

Since the metadata (stored in a metadata file) is going to produce the 
content of that <text:meta-field> element, doesn't it make sense to have 
prefix and suffix as part of the metadata file rather than having it 
stored on the <text:meta-field> element and the rest of what will power 
generation of content in the metadata file?

In which case, there would be no reason to have the attributes prefix 
and suffix on the <text:meta-field> element. Yes?

Realize I may have gotten all that completely backwards and that if so, 
it wasn't intentional.

Hope you are having a great day!

Patrick

> The bibliographic source metadata is another matter. I don't really
> need anything for that, and will just suggest using the new
> bibliographic ontology once it's published (soon):
>
> <http://bibliontology.com>
>
> Bruce
>
>
>   

-- 
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)