Action item on additional example for Foreign Part in MCE Best Practices document.

[MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given)]

Caroline,

Thank you for your contribution!

> 1.  The first paragraph uses both 'foreign part' and 'unknown part.'
> I don't see 'foreign' and 'unknown' as quite synonymous. To me
> 'foreign' means non-OOXML, but 'unknown' means not understood in some
> context.  The use of both terms here is a bit confusing. Part 1 uses
> 'unknown.'.  See Part 1, 9.1.4.  Should we clarify?  Or use 'foreign'
> throughout?

It appears that "foreign part" is never used in ISO/IEC 29500.
We should then use "unknown part" always.

> 2.  Is there any way to declare/register a relationship type that is
> specific to ONIX or rich metadata?  Chris has just used example.org,
> which was "established to be used for illustrative examples in
> documents."  I would be hoping for something more appropriate.  Would
> it be reasonable to use the same host as Editeur uses for ONIX
> namespace URLs - which don't resolve?  An example of an ONIX namespace
> URI: is http://ns.editeur.org/onix/3.0/short

We have to define a relationship type for ONIX records.  I thought
that EPUB 3 provides something similar, but it doesn not. (It rather
relies on a predefied relation "onix-record".)

In my understanding, we have not used namespace URIs as relationship
types.  So, how about

	http://purl.oclc.org/ooxml/officeDocument/relationships/onix-record

?


> 3.  For a foreign part, is it necessary to make sure there is an
> appropriate entry in [Content-Types].xml?  If so, that probably needs
> to be said.

Yes.  Do we have a media type for ONIX records?  I googled but
did not find an answer.  Francis?

> 4.  I have to admit to always having been a bit confused by Part 1,
> 15.2.5 Custom XML Data Storage Part and whether that is also a way to
> get "foreign" data into an OOXML document.  Is that construct worth a
> mention in this Best Practices TR?

It is another way to put "foreign" data into an OOXML document.
If we encourage the use of this construct, we should mention
it.  But, if I'm not mistaken, we don't do so for a non-technical
reason.

> 5. This one is for Rex: I was surprised to see "First, we need to add
> the file to the OPC package:".  The use of "we" seemed odd.

Yes, avoid "we".

> As I
> worked, a several questions came to mind: Attached is my attempt to
> introduce the second example into subclause 3.5.  Francis: Do you know
> someone at Editeur? Might they be open to letting us use '
> http://ns.editeur.org/onix', say?  It's only an example, of course,
> not normative.



Cheers,
Makoto