Re: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Re: [office] Review of ODF 1.2 specificationdraft 1.2 - chapters 6 and 7]]]

[Patrick Durusau <patrick@durusau.net>]

Oliver,

Thanks to you and Oliver Specht for the response!

Just to summarize:

The text:sender-* elements are meant to record information about a 
subsequent editor (different from the initial creator) of a document.

The schema appears to allow multiple sets of text:sender-* elements.

Oliver Specht appears to be saying that OOo Writer maintains only one 
set of text:sender-* elements and so a third, forth, etc., editor simply 
replaces their predecessor.

Assuming I am reading Oliver Specht's answer correctly, that is *a 
limitation of OOo Writer* and not a limitation of ODF.

Or, perhaps I should say, that is an ambiguity in the schema, since 
allowing multiple instances of text:sender-* elements as presently 
defined, could result in confusion of which text:sender-* element went 
with another. The text:sender-* elements are not defined as a group and 
at present there is no linkage between one text:sender-* element and 
another. Note that they are all defined as members of "paragraph-content."

We can, of course, define a semantic of requiring one or more of these 
elements as a group separate from the schema but we have yet to do so.

Hope you are at the start of a great week!

Patrick

Oliver-Rainer Wittmann - Software Engineer - Sun Microsystems wrote:
> Dear TC-members,
>
> below you find the answer from my colleague Oliver Specht to Patrick's 
> question.
>
> Regards, Oliver.
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Re: [office] Review of ODF 1.2 
> specification draft 1.2 - chapters 6 and 7]]
> Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 08:55:42 +0100
> From: Oliver Specht <Oliver.Specht@Sun.COM>
> To: Oliver-Rainer Wittmann - Software Engineer - Sun Microsystems 
> <Oliver-Rainer.Wittmann@Sun.COM>
> References: <49466158.9090409@sun.com>
>
> Hi,
> OOo Writer would not be able to handle a list of editors. The related
> fields would always display the last editor. But it might make sense to
> have such a list just for documentation purposes.
>
> Regards,
> Oliver
>
> Oliver-Rainer Wittmann - Software Engineer - Sun Microsystems wrote:
>> Hi Oliver,
>>
>> can you please answer Patrick's question - see below.
>>
>> Send the answer to me - I will forward it to the ODF TC's mailing list.
>>
>>
>> Thanks in advance, Oliver.
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: [office] Review of ODF 1.2 specification draft 
>> 1.2 - chapters 6 and 7]
>> Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 08:41:48 -0500
>> From: Patrick Durusau <patrick@durusau.net>
>> To: Oliver-Rainer Wittmann - Software Engineer - Sun Microsystems 
>> <Oliver-Rainer.Wittmann@Sun.COM>
>> CC: ODF TC <office@lists.oasis-open.org>
>> References: <493FA3FE.80900@sun.com>
>>
>> Oliver,
>>
>> A quick question on the "sender" fields:
>>
>> Oliver-Rainer Wittmann - Software Engineer - Sun Microsystems wrote:
>> <snip>
>>>>>> - comment to future note in sub chapter "6.3.7.1 
>>>>>> <text:author-name>":
>>>>>> text:author-name is not a duplicate of dc:creator. 
>>>>>> text:author-name is the author of the document, while dc:creator 
>>>>>> is the creator of this ODF stream. E.g. Oliver create a new text 
>>>>>> document in ODF and stores it - text:author-name="Oliver" and 
>>>>>> dc:creator="Oliver". Oliver sends the document to Michael for 
>>>>>> review. Michael opens the document, makes his corrections and 
>>>>>> stores the document - text:author-name="Oliver" and 
>>>>>> dc:creator="Michael".
>>>>> Sorry, you lost me there.
>>>>>
>>>>> What you describe sounds like Michael, as the second author of the 
>>>>> document, is listed for dc:creator.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ah, so is "sender" just bad prose? What it means is a subsequent 
>>>>> author of content in the file?
>>>>>
>>>>> I was wondering how the application was going to realize it had 
>>>>> been "sent."
>>>>>
>>>>> So, I should remove the sender language and simply say additional 
>>>>> author?
>>> The 'Author' created the document and the 'Sender' ist the one who
>>> changed the document. 'Sender' is not a good choice :-;
>> OK, I can't change the text:sender-* element names (not in this release)
>> but I can change the prose to be more appropriate.
>>
>> My suggestion is to use the phrase "a subsequent author" in place of
>> sender in the prose.
>>
>> Under the general introduction I will explain the divergence from the
>> text:sender-* language.
>>
>> Question: It is fair to say that an application could choose to support
>> more than one subsequent author? That is it could maintain multiple sets
>> of what we now call text:sender-* elements?
>>
>> The current schema doesn't seem to prohibit that usage but I wanted to
>> ask to be sure.
>>
>> Hope you are looking forward to a great week!
>>
>> Patrick
>>
>
>

-- 
Patrick Durusau
patrick@durusau.net
Chair, V1 - US TAG to JTC 1/SC 34
Convener, JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3 (Topic Maps)
Editor, OpenDocument Format TC (OASIS), Project Editor ISO/IEC 26300
Co-Editor, ISO/IEC 13250-1, 13250-5 (Topic Maps)