|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|
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?
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?
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.