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 Fields


Michael Stahl wrote:
> hi Patrick,
> On 14/04/2009 02:36, Patrick Durusau wrote:
>> Greetings!
>> A new issue that I had not previously noted.
>> 6.5.1 – 6.5.19, inclusive. All the text in these sections refer to a 
>> “document.” However, note that all these elements are children of 
>> |<text:a>| 5.1.4, |<text:h>| 4.1.1, |<text:meta>| 5.1.5, 
>> |<text:meta-field>| 6.5.19, |<text:p>| 4.1.2, |<text:ruby-base>| 
>> 5.4.1 and |<text:span>| 5.1.3 elements. None of which represent 
>> documents.
> Yes, these field elements refer to the document that is being edited. 
> Specifically, their  contents come from the similarly-named elements 
> in "meta.xml".
Well, but the problem is that we don't make that relationship explicit.

After reading your response I found the following language from ODF 1.1 
(Section 6.4):

> Metadata fields display meta information about the document, such as, 
> the document creation date or the time at which the document was last 
> printed. The names of the metadata field elements correspond to the 
> metadata elements described in Chapter 3.
Saying that the names of field elements "correspond" to metadata 
elements described in another location seems inadequate to specify the 
relationship you suggest.

For example, instead of:

> <text:initial-creator> This element represents the name of the author 
> who created the original document.
One expects:


The <text:initial-creator> element represents a field displays the name 
of the author who created the original document as specified by the 
<meta:initial-creator> element. <ref>


The problem is that we didn't say the second one but it was understood 
by some who read the standard. Although all standards do it imperfectly, 
the goal is to have one *common* reading of the standard. Implied 
relationships based upon similarity of names doesn't further than goal.


Does anyone disagree with Michael Stahl evaluation of this issue?

If not, I will be reforming the prose in the sections I mentioned to 
make the relationships between fields and <meta:*> elements explicit, 
largely along the lines you see above.

Hope you are having a great day!


Patrick Durusau
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)

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