[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Should xlink:arcrole or xlink:role be the primary way to dispatchon related resources? was Re: URIs, names and well known RDDL names,
- From: Jason Diamond <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: "Thomas B. Passin" <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 00:28:10 -0800
> This approach covers it all. The purpose of each xlink is given
> in human and
> machine form, the nature of the resource itself is indicated by the role
> attribute. In this example, we can clearly distinguish between
> the purpose
> and the nature of each resource, even when the same kind of
> resource is used
> for different purposes.
Your example details exactly what I was imagining. Thanks for providing such
a clear explanation.
I especially appreciate your choice of words: purpose and nature! Words like
"type" need to be wiped from our vocabulary.
I'm assuming that you intend for a resource's purpose to be identified by
its xlink:arcrole attribute and its nature by its xlink:role attribute, no?