[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
> 2011/5/10 Peter Junge <peter.junge@gmx.org <mailto:peter.junge@gmx.org>>
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
>
>
> 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]