- From: Tansley, Robert <robert.tansley@hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 12:53:57 -0700
- To: Kevin Smathers <kevin.smathers@hp.com>, "Tansley, Robert" <robert.tansley@hp.com>
- Cc: "(www-rdf-dspace@w3.org)" <www-rdf-dspace@w3.org>
> The question is why you decided to use BND1:1 rather than BND1:2. If > the choice of BND1:1 was required because the resource at > that node is > identified by a content based identifier, then information > has been lost > about the distinct nature of the two instances. The graph > looks wrong; > the second chain is logically independent of the first, yet you've > combined the nodes early in the chain, dividing them only where the > content has changed. I think you instead should consider the > instance > chain to be independent of the content (see attachment.) Hi Kevin, Your attachment shows the logical conclusion of following the logic I was trying to describe; that basically, if you change anything in the archive, since things in the archive are related changing one thing changes the situation that everything related to that changes. This could prove to be a scalability issue; if every minor change in the archive results in a lot of things having a different situation, then the history system will rapidly become an enormous corpus of data. Maybe that's OK. My point is that as far as I'm aware this vital issue hasn't been looked at even vaguely in the original or current work of the History system. Robert Tansley / Hewlett-Packard Laboratories / (+1) 617 551 7624
Received on Thursday, 22 May 2003 15:54:00 UTC