Lists Home |
Date Index |
Michael Champion <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 14:44:23 -0700, Ronald Bourret
> <email@example.com> wrote:
> > 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
> > 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.
Yes, I think you're right.
> > 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?
Somehow OWL doesn't sound like an application specific implementation of
relationship management to me? I agree that it's a solution for at
least some of this puzzle, but I think you're wandering the opposite
direction from where Mr. Bourret wants to go?