office-collab — archive

[Dennis Hamilton]

To clarify, I completely agree that change-tracking in office productivity documents is about the user-perceived document as presented by a consumer. However, it has to be implemented in the markup and I was raising limitations of the markup that would make preservation of an RDF interdependency meaningful. - Dennis MORE DETAIL If there is RDF markup about the document in some *.RDF document in the package, it refers to content via references of some form, using instances of the OWL cases provided for that purpose. This allows reference to material in the content.xml file (and perhaps elsewhere). Although a producer that provides that RDF presumably does so based on some relationship between the RDF and the content.xml (using xml:id values as targets or using XPath or something), it is near impossible for a consumer to know what that interdependency is (unless it is the very same producer). So making modifications to the visible text of the ODF document will, if it applies to areas that are referenced by RDF elsewhere in the package, potentially break the connection. It is not clear how change-tracking of the material changed can compensate for the fact that there is RDF that depends on the unmodified material. There is a referential integrity issue. Note that these issues may also arise with RDFa cross-referencing within content.xml too, just as they arise with cross references and bookmarks in material that is impacted by changes (and their change-tracking).