Bruce,
Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
>
> :-)
>
> Like I said, 1 is the most controversial. There's no getting around
> this is difficult.
>
Yes. ;-)
> On Feb 2, 2006, at 4:53 PM, Patrick Durusau wrote:
>
>> If we are doing pointing in #2 and #3, do we really need to store
>> metadata directly in the document?
>
>
> No, I don't think we need to require it. What I am saying is that we
> allow it, and that we define a standard way to describe that embedded
> metadata.
>
> Without that, we have no interoperability. The current lack of that is
> a SERIOUS problem.
>
Hmmm, but let's not confuse interoperability with supported features.
You point to xmp:blah/blah and I point to xm:blah/blort.
Assuming both ODF applications support reading the XMP data that we
pointed to, using a uniform syntax for IRIs, don't we have interoperability?
Contrast that with:
Your ODF application supports embedded XMP and my ODF application does
not but preserves it.
Is the second case a lack of interoperability? I don't think so but I
may have too narrow a notion of what you mean by the term.
I think what you are asking for is a minimum level of feature support.
OK, but that is a separate question in my mind from interoperability and
has different drivers.
Hope you are having a great day!
Patrick
--
Patrick Durusau
Chair, V1 - Text Processing: Office and Publishing Systems Interface
Co-Editor, ISO 13250, Topic Maps -- Reference Model
Member, Text Encoding Initiative Board of Directors, 2003-2005
Topic Maps: Human, not artificial, intelligence at work!
