• To: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• Subject: Re: XLink and mixed vocabulary design
• From: Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@e...>
• Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 17:35:45 +0100
• Cc: XML Developer List <xml-dev@l...>
• In-reply-to: <r02000200-1028-EAC645974DBD11D8BABF0003937A08C2@[192.168.124.11]>
• References: <r02000200-1028-EAC645974DBD11D8BABF0003937A08C2@[192.168.124.11]>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.6b) Gecko/20031205 Thunderbird/0.4

Simon St.Laurent wrote:
> robin.berjon@e... (Robin Berjon) writes:
>>I've used generic XLinks to find out about dependencies between XML 
>>documents in a variety of arbitrary vocabularies, and I've found it 
>>useful. I'm not in love with XLink itself, but I'd rather have it than 
>>nothing.
> 
> This feels like an argument from laziness, and I have a hard time
> respecting it.  I think analyzing documents should mean learning the
> vocabularies they use and how they use them.

All I need is knowledge that there are relationships between resources. 
Why should I have to teach my code about various different constructs in 
two dozen vocabularies? I don't see what's not to respect in laziness.

> This is really basic linking; I don't think you appreciate what a rich
> set of possibilities is involved here.

I appreciate it, and am happy to leave it to another layer.

>>>Bad sex is not pretty good, IMHO.
>>
>>Still beats XHTML 2 linking though :p
> 
> I think we've had different life experiences.

I'm sorry to hear a hint that sex can get that bad.

-- 
Robin Berjon

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: XLink and mixed vocabulary design
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• References:
  • Re: XLink and mixed vocabulary design
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• Prev by Date: RE: XLink and mixed vocabulary design
• Next by Date: Re: XLink and mixed vocabulary design
• Previous by thread: Re: XLink and mixed vocabulary design
• Next by thread: Re: XLink and mixed vocabulary design
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread