> My view of a "metadata record" is that it is a specific set of
> assertions, created as a set. In the context of an application, it _may_
> be important to record (and to present to a user) the fact that this set
> of assertions, now stored along with n-million other assertions, were
> made together as a unit.
I tend to agree -
> To do this, I'd need to store along with the
> assertions some explicit indication of the fact that the specific
> assertions that form my set/record are related (e.g. came from a common
> source RDF/XML doc on the Web) - I think in the RDF context this is
> described as "context" or "provenance".
It's in that direction, when one wants explicitly express, who said something.
(Statements about statements).
But I think the question Stu asked "What makes a record a record" is pointing in a different
direction - also the way the term "record" is used by Andy to me appears different.
They both seem to go for, which contribution a GIVEN collection of statements is supposed
to make to answer "simple" questions -