• To: Bob Hutchison <hutch@x...>
• Subject: Re: So maybe ID isn't a problem after all.
• From: Jim Ancona <scarhill@y...>
• Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 07:48:27 -0800 (PST)
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <B816A4A9.2500%hutch@x...>
• Reply-to: jim@a...

--- Bob Hutchison <hutch@x...> wrote:
> To represent these graph structures in a useful way, I've found that a
> globally unique identifier is needed. This is because, in my experience,
> some elements begin to appear in more than one document generated by the
> application. In other words graph structures rarely are, in my experience,
> confined to a single document. Something can be an ID and not satisfy the
> practical requirements for graph representation.

A URI+fragment identifier IS a globally unique identifier (assuming that the
fragment identifier points to an element named by an ID, as XPointer says). So
cross-document graphs may be represented with a URI Reference interpreted as an
XPointer Bare Name.

<snip/>

> So, I don't believe IDs are sufficient for the practical requirements of
> graph structures, and XML doesn't support any kind of application
> independent means of representing graph structures anyway. 

What about XPointer?

Jim

=====
Jim Ancona
jim@a...                     jancona@x...

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Find the one for you at Yahoo! Personals
http://personals.yahoo.com

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: So maybe ID isn't a problem after all.
    • From: Bob Hutchison <hutch@x...>
  • Re: So maybe ID isn't a problem after all.
    • From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@r...>

• References:
  • Re: So maybe ID isn't a problem after all.
    • From: Bob Hutchison <hutch@x...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Implementations not specifications are the problem was Re: IDs considered harmful
• Next by Date: Re: XMLDecl version
• Previous by thread: Re: So maybe ID isn't a problem after all.
• Next by thread: Re: So maybe ID isn't a problem after all.
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread