• From: "Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@h...>
• To: Jason Diamond <jason@i...>, xml-dev@l...
• Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 08:32:57 -0500

Jason Diamond said -

> Your example details exactly what I was imagining. Thanks for providing such
> a clear explanation.
>
> I especially appreciate your choice of words: purpose and nature! Words like
> "type" need to be wiped from our vocabulary.
>
> I'm assuming that you intend for a resource's purpose to be identified by
> its xlink:arcrole attribute and its nature by its xlink:role attribute, no?
>
  Yes.  To be more precise, it's the resource's purpose with respect to that
particular xlink that is the arcrole.  It might be used for a different
purpose by another xlink.

BTW, I received Jason's reply to my post BEFORE I had received a copy of my
own post.  That's confusing!

Cheers,

Tom P

• References:
  • RE: Should xlink:arcrole or xlink:role be the primary way to dispatchon related resources? was Re: URIs, names and well known RDDL names,
    • From: Jason Diamond <jason@i...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Schemas and entities (was "And the DTD says, "I'm NOT dead yet!!")
• Next by Date: Re: XML Schemas: Best Practices
• Previous by thread: RE: Should xlink:arcrole or xlink:role be the primary way to dispatchon related resources? was Re: URIs, names and well known RDDL names,
• Next by thread: Re: Should xlink:arcrole or xlink:role be the primary way to dispatchon related resources? was Re: URIs, names and well known RDDL names,
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread