RE: Should xlink:arcrole or xlink:role be the primary way to dispatchon related resources? was Re: URIs, names and well known RDDL names,

[Jason Diamond <jason@injektilo.org>]

> 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?

Jason.