 |
 |
Quoting Simon Spero <[log in to unmask]>: > These issues are orthogonal to the point I'm trying to make, which is that > records are collections of related assertions, and that the > interrelationship between these assertions is a necessary part of their > meaning. > > Simon > Simon, I agree that there are *some* assertions that must be part of the same graph to be meaningful - with the FAST headings being a good example. Other assertions do not need that: to have separate statements that say that the title of book XX8369 (which we will presume for now to be a unique identifier for the manifestation) is "My book" and the place of publication of book XX8369 is "London" doesn't seem to me to need any context beyond the "book XX8369". So in that case, don't the semantically dependent statements get brought together into either blank node graphs or named graphs, and the others hang together based on the identifier for the thing being described? And if someone wants to select a particular set of statements into a collection, will a named graph do? kc -- Karen Coyle [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet