Re: [office] Metadata subcommittee discussion

[Patrick Durusau <patrick@durusau.net>]

Bruce,

Bruce D'Arcus wrote:

>
> :-)
>
> Like I said, 1 is the most controversial. There's no getting around 
> this is difficult.
>
Yes. ;-)

> On Feb 2, 2006, at 4:53 PM, Patrick Durusau wrote:
>
>> If we are doing pointing in #2 and #3, do we really need to store 
>> metadata directly in the document?
>
>
> No, I don't think we need to require it. What I am saying is that we 
> allow it, and that we define a standard way to describe that embedded 
> metadata.
>
> Without that, we have no interoperability. The current lack of that is 
> a SERIOUS problem.
>
Hmmm, but let's not confuse interoperability with supported features.

You point to xmp:blah/blah and I point to xm:blah/blort.

Assuming both ODF applications support reading the XMP data that we 
pointed to, using a uniform syntax for IRIs, don't we have interoperability?

Contrast that with:

Your ODF application supports embedded XMP and my ODF application does 
not but preserves it.

Is the second case a lack of interoperability? I don't think so but I 
may have too narrow a notion of what you mean by the term.

I think what you are asking for is a minimum level of feature support. 
OK, but that is a separate question in my mind from interoperability and 
has different drivers.

Hope you are having a great day!

Patrick

-- 
Patrick Durusau
Patrick@Durusau.net
Chair, V1 - Text Processing: Office and Publishing Systems Interface
Co-Editor, ISO 13250, Topic Maps -- Reference Model
Member, Text Encoding Initiative Board of Directors, 2003-2005

Topic Maps: Human, not artificial, intelligence at work!