Noah, > > With apologies in advance for commenting on a narrow point in a thread > that I probably don't completely grok in the larger sense: > > Experience with compound document systems suggests that we should indeed > "go slow" in allowing embedded RDF to be interpreted independent of the > semantics of its container. My favorite compound document example is a > fictitious word processor that chooses to keep it's "undo" list > persistently in the document along with the current text. Exactly. The idea is that the undo list is said to be in its own "context" and we might believe/assert the context as a whole, or not. RDF 2 (ahem) is really really going to need to deal with this since RDF 1.x doesn't. JonathanReceived on Tuesday, 24 September 2002 20:49:00 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:11 GMT