OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Linkbases, Topic Maps, and RDF Knowledge Bases -- help me

> So my next question is when one or  another is most useful/appropriate.
> Does anyone have some use cases to illustrate when it makes more sense to
> use XLink (with metadata, not as simple physical links) vs XTM vs raw RDF to
> solve a real world problem?

I consider RDF to be best for to managing markup metadata.  This is
pretty much anything that is abstract or transparent with regards to the
content itself.  Of course, this heads right into
element-vs-attribute-type-debate territory, but for instance in a
re-invented Docbook document, I'd tend to see revhistory as suitable for

I consider XLink to be best for content linking such as value reference
and transclusion.  xlink:embed was also useful for inclusion, but I now use
XInclude for that (or good ol' entities).  So going back to the
re-invented Docbook example, Ulink is a no-brainer for XLink, and the
references in BiblioEntry would be a great spot for XTM.  Temporary
annotations and multi-ended relationships for presentation would take good
advantage of XLink's advanced features.

> So, does the world need all three?  Just RDF?  RDF+XLink? RDF+XTM?

*My own opinion* is that RDF, XLink and Topic maps are all complementary,
but that XTM tends to overlap with all of them, and might just be otiose
(or might be the perfect intersection of the three, depending on your

Uche Ogbuji                               Principal Consultant
uche.ogbuji@fourthought.com               +1 303 583 9900 x 101
Fourthought, Inc.                         http://Fourthought.com
4735 East Walnut St, Ste. C, Boulder, CO 80301-2537, USA
Software-engineering, knowledge-management, XML, CORBA, Linux, Python