[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
That will be more complex than Hytime, Michael.
You have to decide the status of linktypes, that is,
are they first class objects? Then you have a basis
for understanding their role in the object framework.
The XML follows. The decision to be made is what
a link declares about its targets. This is a
well-trodden path that is a bit overgrown with
weeds at the moment.
len
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Champion [mailto:michaelc.champion@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2004 7:51 PM
On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 14:44:23 -0700, Ronald Bourret
<rpbourret@rpbourret.com> wrote:
> One possibility is some sort of external document containing link
> information,
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
anything.
> 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?
|
