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] Single ODF 1.2 metadata proposal


Because this proposal is on the December 15 agenda, I wanted to be more
conversant with it than I am.  I do have some preliminary and superficial

1. My note on xml:id was inspired by wanting to offer a simplified way to
handle the metadata proposal and leave open the prospect of being able to
use URIs for other elements without having to be explicit in the schemas.
This sketch was intended to simplify the work in the metadata proposal: 

2. Should there be a metadata:version on the root element of a metadata rdf
file?  On the manifest.rdf file (so the root might not be rdf, but have the
rdf as an element?  Or could there simply be any kind of rdf in metadata RDF
files, about anything in their about: attributes?

3. Is there a way to have this proposal work with a single-file XML document
having <office:document> root element?  Does the embedded-within-the
document case handle that.  That isn't clear to me.  It appears that the in
Content Metadata is constrained to appear on particular elements and not sit
over the entire document the way a separate metadata RDF file would appear
to be. 

4. Wouldn't the individual RDF metadata files in an ODF package also appear
in the ODF manifest.xml file?  Would not their MIME types be expressed there
in any case?

5. This statement on the bottom of page 6 is unclear for me:

"Every OpenDocument XML element with an xml:id attribute is itself a OWL
class identified by the concatenation of it's XML Namespace and it's XML
local name. These classes are subclasses of odf:Element."

So is such a specific element an OWL class or an OWL class instance?  (I may
be confusing OWL class with other kinds of classes.)  Also, would the
instance be identified {namespace}:local-name#id-value (and would not
{namespace}:local-name be the class? 

6. I have more questions about context for situations such as in (5), but
don't know enough to ask them properly.

7. Regarding section 1.2.2, I don't see anywhere that an xmlns:xhtml
namespace declaration has been made, and the usage in 1.2.3 needs support
with an authoritative namespace declaration also.  (Oh, I see the tabulation
in 1.5.5.  They really piled those into an old namespace?  Big sigh.)

8. Section 1.4 carries the statement that "All OpenDocument elements of the
meta.xml should be mapped to RDF." that seems to be quoted below.  I
understand this is for a processor that is creating an external RDF/XML
corresponding to the meta.xml.  Yet I suspect that the extracted metadata
files within the package would be using package-relative URIs and they would
not want to be tied to the external name of an instance of the file in a
particular (potentially ephemeral) location.  Is there something
contradictory about this?  It would seem that the document needs an IRI but
I am thinking maybe it is something found inside the document (a URN
perhaps?) and not tied to an ephemeral resource location.

9. I would hope that there is another way to accomplish what section 1.5.1
attempts.  Maybe just a general rule that an instance of an element that can
be a viewed as an RDF object must have an xml:id and that's that?  (I was
hoping my suggestion about xml:id would facilitate that.)  Also, I think we
should require preservation of xml:id on elements so long as the element
itself is preserved.  [I'm wary of the referential integrity condition
because we don't know if it is (semantically) the same element any longer,
if the xml:id is change.]

10. I am wondering if life could be made much simpler simply by having a
common-element-attlist for all ODF elements and allow, in that an optional
xml:id attribute and an optional common-in-content-meta-attlist and let the
chips fall where they may?

 - Dennis

-----Original Message-----
From: Svante.Schubert@Sun.COM [mailto:Svante.Schubert@Sun.COM] 
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 08:28
To: OASIS Office
Cc: Michael Stahl
Subject: Re: [office] Single ODF 1.2 metadata proposal

Dear TC members,

from the feedback of my colleagues, I did the following minor fixes to the
metadata proposal and uploaded it to:

1) As only relative URLs should be used to refer to inner package resources
within RDF/XML, the OWL properties 'pkg:idref', 'pkg:path' and 'pkg:hasPart'
(the pkg:hasPart to express the relationship of an xml file and xml element
with ID) become redundant.
In addition the wording of the relative URLs for inner package references
had been improved.

2) As stated previously GRDDL will extract the RDFa from content.xml and
styles.xml to RDF/XML and map the OpenDocument XML of the meta.xml to
I was asked to add explicitly in the specification that the common meta.xml
elements should be mapped to RDF by an ODF application in a defined way:

"All OpenDocument elements of the meta.xml should be mapped to RDF. 
The algorithm is provided by the OASIS hosted XSL stylesheet. [Editor's
Note: Add link] "

The stylesheet is an implementation detail, but a mapping from meta.xml to
RDF could be done as the following:

<office:document-meta xmlns:office="....>
        <meta:user-defined meta:name="achieved
        <meta:user-defined meta:name="working hours">5</meta:user-defined>
        <meta:document-statistic meta:table-count="5" meta:image-count="3"

RDF (N3):
<DOCUMENT_IRI> meta:print-date "2004-08-20T07:38:27" . 
<DOCUMENT_IRI> meta:document-statistic [meta:table-count "5";
<DOCUMENT_IRI> meta:user-defined [meta:name "working hours"; meta:value "5"]
<DOCUMENT_IRI> meta:user-defined [meta:name "working hours"; meta:value
"26.08.2004"] . 

Where <DOCUMENT_IRI> is the IRI to the document of the meta.xml (document
E.g. the <DOCUMENT_IRI> for the meta.xml of the root document of the
uploaded proposal would be:


[ ... ]

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