Hi Bruce,
Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
>
> On Dec 20, 2006, at 2:03 AM, Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 -
> Hamburg wrote:
>
>
>> This explains the reason for asking my questions regarding your proposal.
>> Its my understanding that the metadata in your proposal is inline in
>> the content. Please
>> correct me if I'm wrong.
>
> My argument is that in general we want the metadata apart from the
> content, but:
>
> a) to properly reference even resource descriptions (say in a field) we
> need a generic mechanism to do that which requires more than just xml:id
Can you provide an example for this?
>
> b) there may be cases (perhaps Elias' demo today) where we need the
> triples themselves -- which is to say properties that relate to subjects
> others than the document -- in-content,and in those cases it makes sense
> to allow for a few metadata attributes to do this.
I will listen to Elias demo today. Maybe it gets clear to me why this is required.
However, I don't intend to become a SC member. I only want to understand what the
issue is to help to resolve it.
>
> In other words, this is why I call it the "hybrid" approach.
>
>> Since we separate content and styles and content and metadata already,
>> I would
>> like to understand where the benefit is of not doing the same for
>> metadata about other
>> subjects than the document.
>
> If we have this:
>
> <text:link
> meta:property="http://ex.net/client"
> meta:resource="http://ex.net/contacts/1">Jane Doe</text:link>
>
> ... the actual description (say a vCard representation) is apart from
> the content, but we still have *some* metadata there. The string "Jane
> Doe" is just a label (not per se metadata).
Let's see if I did understand that. You have Jane Doe's vCard somewhere. And the two
attributes meta:property and meta:resource do not specify metadata by themselves, but
"duplicate" them to get a link to the vCard entry?
>
> This is what I think Elias means by the in-context metadata idea. It's
> similar to your description of fields.
Maybe. But your example is slightly different than that of Elias. However,
I think we should postpone our discussion until the SC call.
Michael
