Third try -- RE: Action item on additional example for Foreign Part in MCE Best Practices document.

Wed Jan 13 16:05:52 CET 2016

I believe both examples are package relationships.     Caroline

On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 9:27 PM, MURATA Makoto <eb2m-mrt at asahi-net.or.jp>
wrote:

> Caroline,
>
> Thank you very much!
>
> I guess that the relationship in the second example (ONIX) is a package
> relationship.  Is this correct?
>
> Regards,
> Makoto
>
> 2015-12-31 21:40 GMT+09:00 Arms, Caroline <caar at loc.gov>:
>
>> Rex and Darrin,
>>     Attached is my revision for the section on embedding foreign parts in
>> the MCE Guidelines.  It uses the suggestion from Francis to put the new
>> parts into folders -- which we agreed on the call was a good idea.  You
>> said that you should be able to create the appropriate diagram.
>>
>> Happy New Year!
>>
>>    Caroline
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Francis Cave [mailto:francis at franciscave.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2015 11:52 AM
>> To: e-SC34-WG4 at ecma-international.org
>> Subject: RE: Second try -- RE: Action item on additional example for
>> Foreign Part in MCE Best Practices document.
>>
>> Looks good to me. But I wonder if it's a good idea to put a foreign part
>> on the root of the package. Maybe it slightly complicates the picture, but
>> I'd have thought that it would be better to put it inside a folder, e.g.
>> 'movies' in your first example and 'meta' in your second example.
>>
>> Francis
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Arms, Caroline [mailto:caar at loc.gov]
>> Sent: 10 December 2015 14:32
>> To: Francis Cave <francis at franciscave.com>;
>> e-SC34-WG4 at ecma-international.org
>> Subject: RE: Second try -- RE: Action item on additional example for
>> Foreign Part in MCE Best Practices document.
>>
>> Here is proposed substance for this section of the guidelines.  I did not
>> define the term "foreign part" in a formal way because I did not know
>> whether a formal definition belonged in a Terms and Definitions section.
>>
>> I chose to drop Tracked Changes because the section is mostly new and is
>> easier to read that way.  I make no claim for correct formatting!
>>
>>    Thanks for the feedback.   Caroline
>>
>> Caroline Arms
>> Library of Congress Contractor
>> Co-compiler of Sustainability of Digital Formats resource
>> http://www.digitalpreservation.gov/formats/
>>
>> ** Views expressed are personal and not necessarily those of the
>> institution
>> **
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Francis Cave [mailto:francis at franciscave.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2015 5:32 PM
>> To: Arms, Caroline; e-SC34-WG4 at ecma-international.org
>> Subject: RE: Second try -- RE: Action item on additional example for
>> Foreign Part in MCE Best Practices document.
>>
>> Hi Caroline
>>
>> I suggest that you use '.xml' as the extension for an ONIX filename.
>>
>> I agree that Part 1 is clear as to the meaning of "unknown part", so I
>> think we should avoid using this term with a different meaning in the MCE
>> Best Practices document, as it would be confusing for implementers.
>>
>> However, should we define "foreign part" to be specific to OOXML? A more
>> general definition of "foreign part" might be "a part whose specified
>> relationship type is not defined by the MCE implementation". That would
>> make the guidance applicable to implementations of MCE other than
>> implementations of OOXML (Parts 1, 2 and 4).
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Francis
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Arms, Caroline [mailto:caar at loc.gov]
>> Sent: 09 December 2015 21:53
>> To: Arms, Caroline <caar at loc.gov>; 'Francis Cave' <
>> francis at franciscave.com>; e-SC34-WG4 at ecma-international.org
>> Subject: Second try -- RE: Action item on additional example for Foreign
>> Part in MCE Best Practices document.
>>
>> My apologies for not getting another draft of this out yet.  I've been
>> swamped with special requests from the Library before the end of my current
>> contract.
>>
>> Today I got started and realized that I still had questions that might be
>> easier to pose directly rather than in comments on a new draft.
>>
>> First -- in relation to the foreign/unknown terminology
>>
>> From Part 1
>>
>> "9.1.4 Unknown Parts
>> With the exception of relationship parts, all other parts in an Office
>> Open XML document that are not the target of an implicit or explicit
>> relationship are considered unknown parts. Unknown parts shall be ignored
>> on document consumption and can, but need not, be discarded on production."
>>
>> ***This seems to imply that a part that is given a relationship as Chris
>> suggests is NOT an unknown part.
>>
>> Again from Part 1
>> "9.1.7 Unknown Relationships
>> All relationships not defined within ECMA-376 are considered unknown
>> relationships. Unknown relationships are permitted within an Office Open
>> XML document provided that they conform to relationship markup guidelines
>> as defined by the OPC specification. Specifically:
>> *  Conforming consumers shall not fail to load a document containing
>> unknown relationships.
>> *  Conforming producers that are also consumers can, but are not required
>> to, roundtrip and preserve unknown relationships and their target parts."
>>
>> *** So Chris's recommendation is actually to use an "unknown"
>> relationship type not to use an "unknown part."  So I propose to use the
>> term "foreign part" to mean a part with a relationship type not defined in
>> OOXML.
>>
>> Does that make sense?
>>
>> Back to Part 1 on the content type question I raised which no-one
>> responded to.
>>
>> "9.1.6 Invalid Parts
>> ZIP archive items that do not conform to OPC part naming guidelines or
>> are not associated with a content type shall not be allowed in an Office
>> Open XML document, with the exception of items specifically defined by ECMA-
>> 376-2 and trash items."
>>
>> *** This seems to require a declaration in /[Content_Types].xml that
>> covers the type of the added "foreign" part.  Chris's draft does not
>> mention that requirement.  Do others agree that it is a requirement?  If
>> so, I will extend the discussion of the first example to include that.
>>
>> I see the following in a minimal .docx file that I created in Word
>> <Default Extension="xml" ContentType="application/xml"/>
>>
>> I'm going to assume that for the .mov file in the example from Chris, the
>> following would be adequate:
>> <Default Extension="mov" ContentType="video/quicktime"/>
>>        See https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/video/quicktime
>>
>> Looking at the ONIX documentation for guidance on file extension use:
>> From
>>
>> http://www.editeur.org/files/ONIX%203/ONIX_for_Books_Release3-0_html_Best_Pr
>> actice+codes_Issue_31_v1-2-7.zip
>> <http://www.editeur.org/files/ONIX%203/ONIX_for_Books_Release3-0_html_Best_Practice+codes_Issue_31_v1-2-7.zip>
>>   ONIX file names commonly include the '.xml', '.onix' or '.onx' suffix
>> (the first two are preferred).
>>   The mime type should typically be 'application/xml', ...
>>
>> Francis,     Do you have any suggestions as to which of .xml or .onix I
>> should use for the ONIX example?  Or would you recommend covering both
>> possibilities in my example?
>>
>> I hope to have more time before tomorrow's call to work on revised text.
>>
>>       Caroline
>>
>> PS: Apologies for sending a dud message.  My touchpad took control!!
>>
>> Caroline Arms
>> Library of Congress Contractor
>> Co-compiler of Sustainability of Digital Formats resource
>> http://www.digitalpreservation.gov/formats/
>>
>> ** Views expressed are personal and not necessarily those of the
>> institution
>> **
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Arms, Caroline [mailto:caar at loc.gov]
>> Sent: Friday, November 27, 2015 2:25 PM
>> To: 'Francis Cave'; e-SC34-WG4 at ecma-international.org
>> Subject: RE: Action item on additional example for Foreign Part in MCE
>> Best Practices document.
>>
>> Francis,  Thanks again.  Taking a quick look at the schemas, I'm inclined
>> to use the 'reference' version as an example, because if anyone actually
>> followed things up, they would find tag names that are less cryptic.
>>
>> I'll plan on doing a next draft, taking into account the feedback so far,
>> sometime next week.
>>
>>     Caroline
>>
>>
>> Caroline Arms
>> Library of Congress Contractor
>> Co-compiler of Sustainability of Digital Formats resource
>> http://www.digitalpreservation.gov/formats/
>>
>> ** Views expressed are personal and not necessarily those of the
>> institution
>> **
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Francis Cave [mailto:francis at franciscave.com]
>> Sent: Friday, November 27, 2015 6:48 AM
>> To: e-SC34-WG4 at ecma-international.org
>> Subject: RE: Action item on additional example for Foreign Part in MCE
>> Best Practices document.
>>
>> After a further exchange with Graham I think that, if we wish to include
>> an ONIX example, we should use 'application/xml' for the media type. We can
>> use the same URI for both namespace and relationship type, so either '
>> http://ns.editeur.org/onix/3.0/reference' or '
>> http://ns.editeur.org/onix/3.0/short', depending upon which tag set we
>> choose to use.
>>
>> Francis
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given) [mailto:eb2m-mrt at asahi-net.or.jp]
>> Sent: 27 November 2015 03:30
>> To: e-SC34-WG4 at ecma-international.org
>> Subject: Re: Action item on additional example for Foreign Part in MCE
>> Best Practices document.
>>
>> Francis,
>>
>> Thank you very much!
>>
>> A specialized media type for ONIX would make sense if there is some
>> special processing (such as ONIX fragment identifiers).
>>
>> So far, in OOXML,  URIs for namespace names and those for relationship
>> types are different.  But I do not see strong reasons for separating them.
>> Namespace names should be changed only for intentionally destroy existing
>> application programs for new data.  When should we change relationship
>> names?  Probably,when we would like to prohibit existing OOXML applications
>> from accessing new parts.  Then, it might be a good idea to use the same
>> URI.
>>
>> I don't think that namespace names or relationship types have to be
>> resolved.  They are just names.  Thus, I don't think that performance is an
>> issue.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Makoto
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
>
> Praying for the victims of the Japan Tohoku earthquake
>
> Makoto
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.vse.cz/pipermail/sc34wg4/attachments/20160113/2853191a/attachment-0001.html>