- From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 11:55:56 -0400
- To: "Jonathan Borden" <jonathan@openhealth.org>
- Cc: bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com, skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com, tbray@textuality.com, timbl@w3.org, www-tag@w3.org
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. Thus, assuming
wp is the word processor's namespace, we get something like:
<wp:document>
<wp:currentContent>
...real stuff here..
<rdf:xxx ...probably describes the real stuff../>
</wp:currentContent>
<wp:deletedStuff>
...stuff that used to be in the document..
<rdf:xxx ...probably describes the stuff that's
no longer in the document../>
</wp:deletedStuff>
</wp:document>
Let's say that my document used to say that the author was Noah, and the
editing tool was smart enough to capture that in an RDF assertion. Now I
change my mind and delete that statement of authorship from the document.
The RDF (probably) goes to the undo list, so that it can reappear if I
issue an "undo". It would clearly be a mistake to trust that RDF as
representative of the current state of the document.
Of course, you could require that the application either edit the RDF to
assert "we used to think Noah was the author but we don't think so now",
or to use a non-RDF representation. I think that, in general, such
approaches reduce the power of XML. Let's say I use XML to dump a
database that contains XML fragments in various records. Further assume
some of that XML contains RDF assertions. Should it be the
responsibility of the dump program to rewrite those assertions to say:
these assertions don't relate to the dump format container, they relate to
the database records from which the dump was taken? I don't think so.
All of the successful hierarchical compound document systems I know give
outer structures relatively complete control over the semantics of
anything contained within. I suggest great caution if any other approach
is tried with embedded RDF.
Again, apologies if my lack of understanding of RDF nuances has somehow
reduces the usefulness of this comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn Voice: 1-617-693-4036
IBM Corporation Fax: 1-617-693-8676
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Tuesday, 24 September 2002 11:59:39 UTC