- From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
- Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 20:31:09 -0400
- To: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: <www-tag@w3.org>
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. Jonathan
Received on Tuesday, 24 September 2002 20:49:00 UTC