On Mon, 2011-05-16 at 11:39 -0400, wrote:
> monkeyiq <> wrote on 05/15/2011 12:32:24 AM:
>
> >
> > Does anyone else think CT on the RDF is an interesting and valuable
> > idea?
> >
>
> I think it is interesting. But I wonder whether the same applications
> that find it challenging to support the flexible and dynamic GCT proposal
> would also find it equally challenging to support ODF 1.2's flexible and
> dynamic RDF support?
One huge plus here is that the xml:id referencing isn't needed as the
tracked changes have their own identifier system. So if, for example,
changetracking.rdf was nominated to contain the <delta:tracked-changes>
block then it could be preserved as is in an output document. Of course,
unless the ECT/GCT markup in content.xml was preserved then the
references from the changetracking.rdf would be invalidated, but that
would be the same problem if the <delta:tracked-changes> was in XML
inline in the content.xml.
If a current fragment
<delta:change-transaction delta:change-id="ct1">
is converted to
nodeX rdf:type delta:change-transaction
nodeX delta:change-id "ct1"
The content.xml could go on using "ct1" as its identifier
<text:span
delta:insertion-type='insert-around-content'
delta:insertion-change-idref='ct1'
text:style-name="bold-style">bold</text:span>
>
> In other words, I don't think RDF necessarily reduces the complexity of
> support changing tracking. It replaces it with another, perhaps equally
> complex task.
It would seem from initial inspection that RDF might be useful and
simple to use for <delta:tracked-changes> and perhaps ac:change
attributes. Though deletion of content in content.xml seems to offer
significant complexity if one tries to express those changes in RDF.
>
> But that doesn't necessarily mean it is a bad idea.
>
> -Rob
>
