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

["Bruce D'Arcus" <bdarcus@gmail.com>]

On 8/23/07, Patrick Durusau <patrick@durusau.net> wrote:

> So you want:
>
> generic class to extend. (that's in the OWL ontology) Yes?

Yes.

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

No. Properties for use in the RDF/XML that describes the field.

...

> 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?

Indeed ;-)

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

Yes, I'm saying to illustrate clearly:

<odf:Field rdf:about="[uri]">
  <field:prefix>some text </field:prefix>
  <foo:bar rdf:resource="[some-uri]"/>
</odf:Field>

Bruce