Re: [uoml-x] Updates on using SVG and Dublin Core for UOML next version

["Y. Allison Shi" <allison_shi@sursen.com>]

Hi All,

 

I think we should consider Peter's suggestion about Dublin Core. May be we can add a discussion about  it to our next TC meeting.

 

Best rgds,

Allison

2011/5/10 Peter Junge <peter.junge@gmx.org>

TC members,

I have been further investing in some of the open topics for the next UOML version.

SVG
---
I have been contacting the SVG WG of the W3C to find out, if we can be using a subset of SVG within UOML. The answer was "yes". SVG is indeed designed very modular. The SVG WG is strongly promoting using profiles of SVG. They are preparing a recommendation for integrating SVG within other standards. Please refer:
http://dev.w3.org/SVG/modules/integration/SVGIntegration.html

In SVG 1.1 for example SVG Tiny (also SVG Basic) were not defined in own specifications, but were profiles of SVG Full, see:
http://www.w3.org/TR/SVGMobile/

However, if backwards compatibility of UOML 1.1 is still a major requirement, we cannot consider SVG this time, as it would mean applying significant changes to the UOML schema. Hence, I would recommend to add and informative clause to the UOML specification, that explains similarities of UOML graphics objects and according SVG elements.

Metadata
--------
I have been reading quite a lot about metadata last week. My recommendation would be to add basic Dublin Core support to the UOML specification immediately. As the UOML approach to metadata is somehow similar to HTML, one alternative is to follow the recommendation "Expressing Dublin Core metadata using HTML/XHTML meta and link elements": http://dublincore.org/documents/dc-html/
This would look like:
<metalist>
  <meta key="dc:title" val="UOML Part 1 Version 1.1" />
  ...
</metalist>

The other alternative would be to add DC as simple XML according to the recommendation "Guidelines for implementing Dublin Core in XML": http://dublincore.org/documents/dc-xml-guidelines/
This would mean letting reside DC along side the old metadata:
<metalist>
  <meta key="Custom Key" val="Custom Value" />
  <dc:title>UOML Part 1 Version 1.1</dc:title>
  ...
</metalist>

I don't see any compatibility issues with both approaches. Comments are of course welcome.

One of the main advantages to start with Dublin Core now is that it's a good entry to support RDF later, which will offer some interesting features to express relations of documents within a docset or between docsets.

Best regards,
Peter

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php