On 8/23/07, Patrick Durusau <patr...@durusau.net> wrote:
So you want:
generic class to extend. (that's in the OWL ontology) Yes?
Yes.
and
prefix and suffix for the field (that in the Relax-NG for the
<text:meta-field> element) Yes?
No. Properties for use in the RDF/XML that describes the field.
...
Since the metadata (stored in a metadata file) is going to produce the
content of that <text:meta-field> element, doesn't it make sense to have
prefix and suffix as part of the metadata file rather than having it
stored on the <text:meta-field> element and the rest of what will power
generation of content in the metadata file?
Indeed ;-)
In which case, there would be no reason to have the attributes prefix
and suffix on the <text:meta-field> element. Yes?
Yes, I'm saying to illustrate clearly:
<odf:Field rdf:about="[uri]">
<field:prefix>some text </field:prefix>
<foo:bar rdf:resource="[some-uri]"/>
</odf:Field>
Bruce
23 messages in org.oasis-open.lists.office-metadataRe: [Fwd: Re: [office-metadata] Reuse...
.png, .png