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

[ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Henry S. Thompson)]

Jason Diamond <jason@injektilo.org> writes:

> > 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?

I agree with Thomas's proposal and Jason's assessment of it.

That's three 'aye' votes:  motion passed :-)

ht
-- 
  Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
          W3C Fellow 1999--2001, part-time member of W3C Team
     2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
	    Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk
		     URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/