23 messages in org.oasis-open.lists.office-metadataRe: [Fwd: Re: [office-metadata] Reuse...| From | Sent On | Attachments |
|---|---|---|
| Bruce D'Arcus | Aug 22, 2007 5:18 pm | |
| Svante Schubert | Aug 23, 2007 9:25 am | |
| Patrick Durusau | Aug 23, 2007 10:21 am | |
| Bruce D'Arcus | Aug 23, 2007 11:10 am | |
| Patrick Durusau | Aug 23, 2007 12:35 pm | |
| Bruce D'Arcus | Aug 23, 2007 12:58 pm | |
| Svante Schubert | Aug 24, 2007 2:35 am | |
| Patrick Durusau | Aug 24, 2007 3:04 am | |
| Bruce D'Arcus | Aug 24, 2007 5:12 am | |
| Svante Schubert | Aug 24, 2007 5:21 am | |
| Bruce D'Arcus | Aug 24, 2007 6:31 am | |
| Svante Schubert | Aug 24, 2007 8:32 am | |
| Bruce D'Arcus | Aug 25, 2007 9:03 am | |
| Svante Schubert | Aug 27, 2007 5:16 am | |
| Patrick Durusau | Aug 27, 2007 5:38 am | |
| Svante Schubert | Aug 27, 2007 9:10 am | |
| Bruce D'Arcus | Aug 27, 2007 11:47 am | |
| John Madden | Aug 27, 2007 2:31 pm | |
| Svante Schubert | Sep 5, 2007 3:02 am | |
| John F. Madden, MD, PhD | Sep 5, 2007 8:02 am | |
| Svante Schubert | Sep 5, 2007 9:28 am | |
| John F. Madden, MD, PhD | Sep 6, 2007 12:32 pm |  .png, .png |
| Bruce D'Arcus | Sep 6, 2007 12:35 pm |
| Subject: | Re: [Fwd: Re: [office-metadata] Reuse of metadata proposal for non ODFapplications] | |
|---|---|---|
| From: | Svante Schubert (Svan...@Sun.COM) | |
| Date: | Aug 24, 2007 2:35:16 am | |
| List: | org.oasis-open.lists.office-metadata | |
Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
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>
First some basics: The RDF/XML snippet you provided is a part of the user RDF/XML and not of the metadata manifest, correct?
As it is an RDF/XML data file the odf:Field can be written as well as
<rdf:Description rdf:about="[uri]"> <rdf:type rdf:resource="http://docs.oasis-open.org/opendocument/meta/package/odfField"/> <field:prefix>some text </field:prefix> <foo:bar rdf:resource="[some-uri]"/> </rdf:Description>
Than it looks quite similar to the my earlier posting. Only I intended to reuse existing ODF element namespace & local name to describe an element (e.g. <rdf:type rdf:resource="urn:oasis:names:tc:opendocument:xmlns:text:1.0meta-field"/> ) instead of inventing new names.
Regarding an RDF subclass, of course all specific ODF elements would inherit from the existing odf:Element OWL class we have already defined.
Nevertheless it seems the odf:Field is just semantic sugar, but not really necessary, as the relation to the text:meta-field is made by the [uri]. It seems even better to use <citation:Field> instead of the <odf:Field> to define a citation:prefix and suffix as it is not clear that all text:meta-field would use this prefix/suffix mechanism as it is currently not defined in ODF.
Regards, Svante