Lists Home |
Date Index |
On Mon, 2004-10-25 at 01:50, Michael Champion wrote:
> 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.
That sounds a lot better than links to me; relationship information.
Some apps may want to generate hyperlinks from the combination of
relationships and document(s), others may do other things as Peter
So there are now three things.
application.exe which plays with combinations of the above using
some collection of todays tools.
> > 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.).
I'd put these into application.exe? I want to show this relationship
in this specific way for that specific purpose? Sort of configuration
information for application.exe?
> 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?
I like that.
> Agree! So should that be a core part of some future XML, or a small
> supplemental spec on the order XML Base, or what?
I'll leave that to others :-)
But I do like it 'outside' my xml instance.
Keeps the xml instance nice and simple? I've only got points (id's?)
and Gavin tells me they could equally well be put in the
relationships.xml document. KISS principle?
Would that mix nicely with XML-- which steps gracefully
from docHead world to dataHead world? No id/idref pairs?
> 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?
Or something quite simple and in between until the need for the OWL's
wisdom is perceived?