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

[Patrick Durusau <patrick@durusau.net>]

Svante,

Svante Schubert wrote:
<snip>
> 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.
>
Perhaps Bruce can clarify what he meant but I think he was proposing 
that odf:Field would have prefix and suffix material not in the sense of 
a citation prefix or suffix (I think that would be handled internal to 
the RDF data on the citation) but something more generic.

That is:

(Whatever prefix, in the sense of occurring before the content generated 
by text:meta-field)
Generated content
(Whatever sufficx, in the sense of occurring after the content generated 
by text:meta-field)

Hmmm, think if it as "fixed" material that while recorded in the 
metadata file is simply inserted around the content generated by 
text:meta-field.

I am trying to illustrate that the prefix and suffix need not be part of 
the generated content of the citation. I think that is being too bound 
to a particular use case.

I suppose we should wait for Bruce to have time to respond but I think 
that is what he is talking about.

Hope you are having a great day!

Patrick

-- 
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)