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] Discussion Requested: ODF <dc:creator> conflicts



It is important to cite the Guidelines for use in XML because what we are
doing is using Dublin Core in XML (not RDF, the primary application of
Dublin Core for the Semantic Web).  

The DCMI XML Guidelines document makes sufficient reference to the semantics
and other aspects of the Dublin Core Element Set 1.1 (and later ones), so it
is an appropriate way to be specific about the ODF reliance on Dublin Core
in elements like <dc:creator>.  

If, instead, we cite and link to the current DCES page, there is no longer
any indication of the use in XML.  In fact, DCMI seems to have walked away
from use of the DCMI Namespace as an XML Namespace. 


Because the Guidelines for XML Use of the Dublin Core are just that,
Guidelines, it is also important to say which of the numbered
Recommendations are being honored in the ODF usage by reference and
(perhaps) which ones are not incorporated by reference.  We can do that by
making reference to the Guidelines and providing additional statements
somewhere about the use of Dublin Core metadata (more than the statement at
the beginning of section 3 of ODF 1.1 and in section 3.3.1 of ODF 1.2

3. CLEANING UP <dc:creator>

It is also important, in applying the DC element definition for "creator" to
specify what the "resource" is in each case, although I think your
restatement would do it, although I propose this modification:

   "The <dc:creator> element *signifies an entity that created
   the current document instance* (*in* <office:meta>), *that*
   created *the* annotation (*in an* <office:annotation>), *that*
   created *the* change (*in an* <office:change-info>)." 

Note that I have used "created" in every case, which narrows the murkiness a
little.  I do note that Dublin Core uses "entity" with forethought and I
have restored that.

Although the DCMI Guidelines deal with multiple occurrences of the same
element in a record, I believe the ODF schema only provides for that in
<office:meta> and makes the interpretation (and creation) of multiple
occurrences implementation-dependent.  


I concur with Rob, that any specification here fails to be normative, in the
verifiable conformance sense.  There is no stated, testable condition by
which an element whose content is a string shall signify some sort of
entity, including a person.  

In this regard, there is not that much help in the DCMI proviso that
"typically, the name of a Creator should be used to indicate the entity."
(Notice the proper noun, "Creator.")  

 This suggests to me that the string is typically presentable as
human-meaningful text, but it is hard to be any more precise than that
equally-vague provision.

Perhaps we can go so far as to state that 

   "The <dc:creator> element's string value *should* be presentable as
human-readable text."

although we have no way to deal with human-language issues here.  Is there a
better term than "human-readable" that works here?

 - Dennis

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael.Brauer@Sun.COM [mailto:Michael.Brauer@Sun.COM] 
Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 00:14
To: dennis.hamilton@acm.org
Cc: Rob Weir; ODF TC List
Subject: Re: [office] Discussion Requested: ODF <dc:creator> conflicts

Hi Dennis,

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


that is, the one we are citing right now?

[ ... ]

DCMI here says that the creator is "An entity primarily responsible for 
making the resource."

[ ... ]

Anyway, if we want to provide a clarification, then my suggestion would 
be to remove the note entirely, and to change the normative text to:

"The <dc:creator> element specifies the name of the person who *created 
the current document instance* (<office:meta>), who created an 
annotation (<office:annotation>), who authored a change 

Best regards


Michael Brauer, Technical Architect Software Engineering
Sun Microsystems GmbH             Nagelsweg 55
D-20097 Hamburg, Germany          michael.brauer@sun.com
http://sun.com/staroffice         +49 40 23646 500

Sitz der Gesellschaft: Sun Microsystems GmbH, Sonnenallee 1,
	   D-85551 Kirchheim-Heimstetten
Amtsgericht Muenchen: HRB 161028
Geschaeftsfuehrer: Thomas Schroeder, Wolfgang Engels, Dr. Roland Boemer
Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Martin Haering

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