|Bruce D'Arcus||Jun 21, 2007 6:50 am|
|Bruce D'Arcus||Jun 21, 2007 7:47 am|
|Patrick Durusau||Jun 21, 2007 8:10 am|
|Svante Schubert||Jun 21, 2007 8:13 am|
|Bruce D'Arcus||Jun 21, 2007 8:17 am|
|Bruce D'Arcus||Jun 21, 2007 8:24 am|
|Svante Schubert||Jun 24, 2007 9:15 am|
|Svante Schubert||Jun 24, 2007 11:00 am|
|Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 - Hamburg||Jun 25, 2007 4:19 am|
|Patrick Durusau||Aug 21, 2007 7:58 am|
|Subject:||Re: [office-metadata] Reuse of metadata proposal for non ODFapplications|
|From:||Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 - Hamburg (Mich...@Sun.COM)|
|Date:||Jun 25, 2007 4:19:10 am|
Svante Schubert wrote:
There has been earlier some discussion and tendencies about making our metadata proposal for packages more modular, more reusable for other non ODF applications. As there were no opinions against this approach, we should come quickly to a proposal how this can be established. Therefore I would like to give a suggestion, how this can be done with minimal work-load for our group.
The basic idea is to create from the current proposal document two documents:
One new reference specification, which explains the metadata framework for package formats without relation to ODF. This document would reside outside the ODF 1.2 specification.
Do you mean by this that it does not become a part of the ODF main specification (i.e. the first part of the ODF spec), but a separate document, like the formula or package specification? That's possible, but it of course still would be part of the ODF 1.2 specification.
However, I think what is essential is that those parts of the metadata specification that are not ODF specific, actually are specified without referencing the ODF spec. Whether they become a chapter of one of the three parts that we have already, or a separate one, actually does not make a large difference, since it could be referenced from other specification in both cases.
Because of the close relation of the meta data proposal to packages, I could imagine that we add the package related parts of the proposal to the package part of the spec. But as a separate chapter, that is independent of the existing package specification. This way we avoid having a large main specification document, and having two very small meta and package documents. If required, we may of course separate the two chapters into two documents later.
The correct place for the ODF related parts of the specification in my opinion is the main specification. This in particular applies to all those things that extend the ODF schema, like the in-content metadata and the new xml:ids.
As well the namespace of in content metadata would need adoption to be reused in a unique way elsewhere. This is necessary for upcoming RDF package parser to identify package metadata in a consistent way even in packages from non ODF applications.
Suggested changes in detail:
This URI misses the "opendocument" TC name identifier, and therefore seems not to be in alignment with the OASIS namespace policies. I'm not sure if it is really required to have two namespaces, but if so, they both would have to include the TC name.
-- Michael Brauer, Technical Architect Software Engineering StarOffice/OpenOffice.org Sun Microsystems GmbH Nagelsweg 55 D-20097 Hamburg, Germany mich...@sun.com http://sun.com/staroffice +49 40 23646 500 http://blogs.sun.com/GullFOSS
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Sun Microsystems GmbH, Sonnenallee 1, D-85551 Kirchheim-Heimstetten Amtsgericht Muenchen: HRB 161028 Geschaeftsfuehrer: Marcel Schneider, Wolfgang Engels, Dr. Roland Boemer Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Martin Haering