generic structured fields, citations

On 10/24/06, Jakob Lechner <jakob.lechnerfabalabs.org> 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: dev-unsubscribesw.openoffice.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-helpsw.openoffice.org