Re: [office-metadata] Differences of our binding/identifications propsals, possible settlement

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

Just a quick comment on this, as I am in a hurry:

On Mar 20, 2007, at 2:41 PM, Svante Schubert wrote:

>> The version-id would *not* be used for subject URIs within graphs.  
>> They would only -- and optionally -- be used for named graphs  
>> where come application or plug-in needed to version-control its  
>> metadata.
>>
>> That gives us a stable and unique (apart from the cp scenario,  
>> which we cannot control) ID for the document, and yet versioning  
>> can still work.
> I am fine with this. But is it really necessary to make this ID  
> mandatory, i.e. require it to be used instead of the placeholder  
> 'odf:/'

If you're worried about that, you can just use xml:base in the rdf/ 
xml file.

But readability isn't a requirement per se that should affect the  
design.

Bruce