Re: [xml-dev] xml:href, xml:rel and xml:type

[Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com>]

On 13/04/2012 13:36, Rushforth, Peter wrote:
>
>
> I am interested in RESTful applications, and in thinking about the space, I have come
> to think that XML, while wonderful for creating your own domain specific vocabulary,
> also suffers from that very strength:  too many re-inventions of the same thing (because
> its so easy to reinvent) leads to no standardization/interoperability at all.
So why reinvent XLink?

I've always had the view that data models generally consist of objects 
(elements), attributes, and relationships, and if XML allows you to 
dream up your own names for your elements and attributes then it should 
also allow you to use your own name for your relationships. Why should 
we use the same name for the relationship between a product and its 
manufacturer as we use for the relationship between a factory and its 
geographical location?

I think that's why XLink failed, and I don't see any difference in your 
proposal.

Now, data typing is another matter: it would be nice if attributes 
containing dates, integers, or URIs were recognizable as such without 
recourse to a schema. But forcing all URIs to be called xlink:href is as 
crazy as forcing all dates to be called date.

Michael Kay
Saxonica