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 all,

regarding SVG my proposal is to not include it yet. The reason is 
simple. One of the main requirements for UOML Part 1 Version 1.1 is to 
stay compatible with Version 1.0. Replacing UOML Graphics Objects with 
SVG would entirely break compatibility.

My proposals are instead:
1) Extending and refining UOML Graphics Objects compatible to UOML 
Version 1.0.
2) Adding an informative clause to the UOML specification that focuses 
on similarities and differences between UOML Graphics Objects and SVG.
3) Evaluating the use of SVG for UOML version 2.0. This can be done in 
parallel of working on UOML 1.1, hence we will have a lot of time to 
find a good solution, but still being able to work on UOML Version 2 
immediately after Version 1.1 is ready.

Best regards,
Peter

Am 17.05.2011 10:17, schrieb Y. Allison Shi:
> Hi Peter,
> If you can prepare a brief proposal about why we should include Dublin
> Core to our current version, that will be great. I will add it to the
> last item we will discuss on our Thurday's TC meeting.
> Best rgds,
> Allison
>
> 2011/5/13 Peter Junge <peter.junge@gmx.org <mailto:peter.junge@gmx.org>>
>
>     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> <mailto: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]