On Feb 23, 2006, at 10:43 AM, Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 -
Hamburg wrote:
> OpenDocument Meta Data Sub Committee (MDSC) Draft Charter
> =========================================================
A minor issue: in English "meta data" is usually one word: metadata.
> Statement of purpose
> --------------------
> 1. To gather use cases for the application of meta data in OpenDocument
> documents and OpenDocument aware applications.
> 2. To classify the use cases.
> 3. To derive meta data related requirements for future versions of
> OpenDocument from the use case classes.
> 4. To propose meta data related enhancements for OpenDocument for
> consideration by the Opendocument TC which address these requirements.
OK.
> Deliverables
> ------------
> 1. A list of meta data use cases for OpenDocument documents and
> OpenDocument
> enabled applications, together with a classification of the use cases.
> 2. A list of meta data related requirements for future versions of
> OpenDocument, which will be prioritized by the OpenDocument TC.
> 3. Proposals for OpenDocument enhancements which address the
> requirements
> identified in deliverable 2.
Can we not just combine 1 and 2? E.g. have:
1. A document that includes:
a. use cases ...
b. requirements ...
> Scope of work
> -------------
> The subcommittee's work is to collect use cases where meta data is
> passedor
> stored along with OpenDocument documents, to classify them as described
> above, and to derive a set of requirements for future versions of
> OpenDocument from these classes. The subcommittee's work further is to
> prepare proposal for OpenDocument enhancements which address these
> requirements.
OK.
> The proposed enhancements must provide general solutions for the
> application
> of meta data in OpenDocument documents and OpenDocument aware
> applications in
> general. That is, they have to be neutral to specific meta data
> ontologies.
I would use the word "vocabulary" rather than "ontology."
> The proposed enhancements further must consider office applications as
> the
> main editing tool for OpenDocument documents
I think this last bit is too restrictive. You are already assuming
particular use cases and requirements when you write that into the
charter. I can imagine examples where an office application may use
embedded metadata, but may not be its primary creator/editor.
> , which means, they must not conflict with the processing model of
> OpenDocument documents for office
> applications.
That's fine. I just suggest you rewrite the last bit to not assume the
preceding. I think the requirements document should specify the need to
define levels of conformance that address this issue.
Bruce
