OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

uoml-x message

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


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


Hi,

if needed I could prepare a proposal until then.

Peter

On 12.05.2011 20:42, Y. Allison Shi wrote:
> 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 <mailto: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
> 
> 


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