OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

office message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: Re: [office] Meta Data Requirments Sub Committee

It's likely I'll miss today's call (I have another meeting at the same 
time), so let me comment here for the record.

On Mar 6, 2006, at 7:59 AM, Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 - 
Hamburg wrote:

> I've changed the following:
> - "meta data" is now spelled "metadata"
> - The "scope of work" paragraph now states "The use case and 
> requirement documents shall be approved by the TC before the SC 
> proceeds with the next specification stages."
> - The last sentence of "scope of work" does not refer to office 
> applications for editing and longer. It now reads:"The proposed 
> enhancements further must not conflict with the processing model of 
> OpenDocument documents for office applications.".

Looks good to me.

> Two other concerns that were mentioned but that I did not include into 
> this version of the charter are:
> 1. To combine the use cases and the requirements into one document: 
> The separation of the use cases and the requirements allows the TC to 
> sort out certain use cases before the SC spends time on gathering the 
> requirments for these use cases. For this reason, I have left them 
> separate for now, but we of course may combine them if we think this 
> is more apropriate.

I don't have a really strong opinion on this. I think it depends on 
what the rest of the likely members of the SC think.

> 2. To replace "metadata ontology" with "metadata vocabulary": In my 
> opinion, the term "metadata vocabulary" could be misunderstood as 
> "(generic) XML vocabulary for meta data", that is, something like 
> RDF-XML.  This seems not to be the case for the term "metadata 
> ontology".

My understanding is that:

1) vocabulary = the names we use to label statements
2) ontology = the meaning we assign to particular vocabulary terms and 
their relations

It's probably better explained here:


My sense is we really don't care about the ontology level at all.

In either case, I don't think this is a critical issue, except that we 
want to be clear that we are saying that while the metadata proposal 
may provide a general set of elements and attributes (which are how we 
represent, say, an RDF model and vocabulary in XML), it should not 
include ones that are specific to any particular use case.


[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]