Lists Home |
Date Index |
On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 14:44:23 -0700, Ronald Bourret
> For example, given the element <part>123</part>, it would be nice to
> link this with a document containing more information about part 123,
> but XQuery would need to know where to go looking for that document.
> One possibility is some sort of external document containing link
That's what an ontology does, I think. Not link information, but
relationship information, which
could be used by an application to follow links, or generate XQuery,
DOM, XSLT, or whatever to leverage the relationship information. Not
that I'm going to channel Ted Nelson and suggest that simple one way
HTML hyperlinks are evil, but I think I can defend the proposition
that in a world where XQuery (or maybe just XPath2, not sure ...) and
OWL exist and are widely supported, XLink doesn't add much if
> On a related point, I think it would be nice to be able to just say,
> "This is a link," without any of the additional explanatory information
> that XLink gives (type, role, etc.). The advantage of this is
> simplicity, and it really isn't that unreasonable when you think about
> it: Most interpretation of XML documents is application specific anyway,
> so why should links be any different?
Agree! So should that be a core part of some future XML, or a small
supplemental spec on the order XML Base, or what?
So, the "this is a link" namespace or whatever for simple things, and
OWL for the times when you really do need to specify the direction,
type, role, etc. of a relationship, maybe?