Dear colleagues,
given the paramount importance of resource relationships, the effort seems justified to think about them carefully and patiently.
Apologies for bothering you with a personal anecdote, and you can safely skip it and resume reading at "question 1". Last night, immediately before going to sleep, looking for some detail I leafed through the XLink specification (1). Today, in the early morning, grey and audible with the calls of doves, I awoke still entangled in a dream. I had dreamed of a system of rivers, defined on board of ships traveling on rivers. Jointly they defined a system consisting of real rivers, the ones they traveled on, like Rhein or Elbe, and tiny artificial ones, which existed on board of a ship, like a swimming pool, connecting different ends. Awaking, I gazed at those vague images and heard a voice saying "I do not find this convincing", alas, not giving any reasons.
QUESTION 1. Why is XLink little adopted - can you identify important mistakes or omissions?
QUESTION 2. Imagining for a moment, XLink were widely adopted, would a "link::" axis in XPath make sense, enabling expressions like:
/ ancestor::airports / child::airport / link::airportDetails / @name
Kind regards,
Hans-Jürgen
