|
Yes it does. Are you saying that associating semantics with the XLink markup are:
O incompletely associated/specified (not enough data)? O over specified (too much data that you have to ignore)? O not precise enough about the semantic/process associated (the problem is not the markup specification but the process specification)?
You are right that the whole point of indirect association is to specify a process. Typically when a markup language becomes controversial, it is not because of the markup (trivial to model that) but because of the specification for the object that consumes it. That is one reason for perma threads in XML: debating syntax and data declaration instead of object methods where the real problems of specification are harder and Not XML anyway.
len
GML (Geography Markup Language) also relies on XLink for semantic association and represents a growing community, riding a gradual uptake of OGC WFS services. With metadata standards rapidly maturing in this domain, the GML community is coming to a point where enterprise support for GML will require custom XLink models/processors. Previous experiences with XLink have left me thinking that the effort/reward ratio is far too low. I’m interested by the direction of this thread though.
Nick Ardlie |