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-metadata] Re: Fwd: [office] proposal to enhance annotations


+1 on seeing more detail!

I am very interested in seeing why the metadata proposal as it exists or 
perhaps with a minor extension could not provide the ability required.

I don't know of any reason why the metadata manifest could not represent 
a relationship between two "parts" of an ODF document that both happen 
to exist within content.xml.

That is to say that there is no requirement that "metadata" exist 
separate from the content.xml file, unless you have some use case for 
that separate existence, such as asynchronous metadata or similar cases.

I am all in favor of "annotation" features (no real surprise, a lot of 
scholarship is really annotation of some primary text*) but wondering if 
we really need to go outside the metadata proposal to make that happen.

Hope you are having a great week!


*At one time, dissertations were routinely written on Aberlard's 
"Sentences." My Medieval Latin isn't good enough to attempt those but 
one does have to wonder after the Nth dissertation on that work how much 
was left to be said. ;-) That may be an extreme case of "annotation" but 
that is one way that I would see such a text.

Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
> adding the main TC list to the cc ...
> Florian Reuter wrote:
>> Hmm. Looks like a perfect use-case for metadata. And especially a lot 
>> of time went into the dicussion of ids and overlapping start/end 
>> segments.
>> So I see no reason why introducing yet another extension mechanism.
>> At least the proposal should be compatible with the metadata spec and 
>> not orthogonal.
> Absolutely!
> I'm fine with the notion that defining an annotation region is 
> different than a bookmark, and I agree that one should be able to 
> define annotation regions in ODF.
> But beyond that, one could imagine some messy overlap with metadata.
> E.g. a "compatible" proposal, to me, would be:
> 1) structurally equivalent to bookmarks
> 2) allow xml:id
> 3) use RDF for any optional metadata (creator, date, subjects, etc.).
> So what does the annotation XML actually look like?
> Bruce

Patrick Durusau
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)

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