On 10/24/06, Jakob Lechner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, 2006-10-23 at 10:58 -0400, Bruce D'Arcus wrote: > This is my opinion, but I think metadata in ODF should conform to a > common model. Otherwise, we end up with little islands of content that > are intelligible without dedicated code. I think custom schema support > as implemented by MS is not a good model for ODF. Wouldn't this approach be a little too restrictive? You can't specify a xml schema for all use cases. May be fixed schemas for the most common use cases like contacts or citations etc. could be provided. But what if someone wants to store metadata about his music collection in an openoffice document? Just an example.
Good example. There's no problem; I'm advocating a common *model*, with no restrictions on how it's used. See: <http://wiki.oasis-open.org/office/Metadata_Model_and_Syntax> So no need for a schema; just add the properties you want. The only restriction would not be on what you say, but *how* you say it. I'm also advocating including a series of default modules that can be reused for different cases. In the case of the user that wants to store music collections, they could reuse most of the default vocabularies.. This is similar to what Adobe does with its XMP system (also based on RDF), but adapted more to ODF, and to RDF in the 21st century (Adobe designed XMP somewhere around 2000). And this is of course for metadata content that benefits from some common model; I don't imagine it'd be valuable for all custom content use cases. Bruce --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
