Re: [office-metadata] Revision and stable ids (was: Re: [office-metadata] Rought notes 14 March)

[Bruce D'Arcus <bdarcus@gmail.com>]

Good summary Elias.

On this:

On Mar 14, 2007, at 1:36 PM, Elias Torres wrote:

> I would then infer that in-context metadata would only be used for
> non-revision specific information.

This gets us back to the fields. I would call the field information  
(subject URI and parameters) to be "non-revision specific." For that  
reason, I would actually say we should exclude the xml:id approach on  
fields and require subject (or object?) URIs on them.

Before we get further with the implications of this, does my logic  
make sense here?

On versioned metadata ...

> The other approach is the Named Graph approach.

... I prefer this option myself. It's simple and elegant.

Bruce