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

[Svante Schubert <Svante.Schubert@Sun.COM>]

Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
> 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>
>
>   
First some basics:
The RDF/XML snippet you provided is a part of the user RDF/XML and not 
of the metadata manifest, correct?

As it is an RDF/XML data file the odf:Field can be written as well as

<rdf:Description rdf:about="[uri]">
  <rdf:type rdf:resource="http://docs.oasis-open.org/opendocument/meta/package/odfField"/>
  <field:prefix>some text </field:prefix>
  <foo:bar rdf:resource="[some-uri]"/>
</rdf:Description>

Than it looks quite similar to the my earlier posting. Only I intended 
to reuse existing ODF element namespace & local name to describe an element
(e.g.  <rdf:type 
rdf:resource="urn:oasis:names:tc:opendocument:xmlns:text:1.0meta-field"/> 
) instead of inventing new names.

Regarding an RDF subclass, of course all specific ODF elements would 
inherit from the existing odf:Element OWL class we have already defined.

Nevertheless it seems the odf:Field is just semantic sugar, but not 
really necessary, as the relation to the text:meta-field is made by the 
[uri].
It seems even better to use <citation:Field> instead of the <odf:Field> 
to define a citation:prefix and suffix as it is not clear that all 
text:meta-field would use this prefix/suffix mechanism as it is 
currently not defined in ODF.

Regards,
Svante