Re: [office] Discussion Requested: ODF <dc:creator> conflicts

[robert_weir@us.ibm.com]

Michael.Brauer@Sun.COM wrote on 04/02/2009 03:14:20 AM:

> 
> On 04/02/09 02:49, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> > Wonderful!
> > 
> > We need to refer to that.  It is very important that we refer to that 
and
> > not other DCMI documents, because DCMI has removed the XML provision 
from
> > its latest DCMI Namespace policy.
> 
> Well, this document does describe how DCMI should be used within XML, 
> and therefore explains why ODF is using DCMI in the way it is using it. 
> But is this what we should refer to in the ODF specification? Isn't the 
> specification we have to cite here the one that describes the semantics 
> of elements, and isn't this
> 
> http://www.dublincore.org/documents/dces/
> 
> that is, the one we are citing right now?
> 


I think the question to ask is:  Does the reference explain _why_ we made 
the choice we did?  Or does it state _what is required_ of a conformant 
ODF document or ODF Producer/Consumer?  If a reference is justifying our 
design choice, or providing a design rationale, then it is not really a 
normative reference.  We might have an informative reference for that if 
we want, but that is purely optional.  But if something defines a 
requirement for a document, producer, or consumer, then it requires a 
normative reference. 

The use of a particular namespace for Dublin Core is already required by 
our schema.  We don't need to cite any further authority than that.  The 
fact that it is in synch with the Guidelines is great.  But from the 
perspective of an ODF document/producer/consumer, they use that namespace 
because the ODF schema defines it so. 

-Rob