• To: "'Ben Trafford'" <ben@p...>, xml-dev@l...
• Subject: RE: After XQuery, are we done?
• From: "DuCharme, Bob (LNG-CHO)" <bob.ducharme@l...>
• Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 12:33:34 -0400

Ben Trafford wrote:

>You're proposing we say, "Look, you want links? Well, first write yourself 
>a DTD. Then a stylesheet. Oh, and by the way, you'll need to write an RDF 
>vocabularly to represent the data relationships, too. Hope you like
colons!" 

Looks like we've got two threads going. I never said any of that, but
interestingly I did agree with you in the other thread that stylesheets have
a lot of value. All I said was that RDF provides a way to say that resource
X has relationship Y to resource Z. We don't need DTDs, stylesheets or
especially new RDF vocabularies to express such a relationship statement.

We do need a usable RDF syntax. Of the various alternatives, I certainly
won't defend RDF/XML, and I look forward to the results of the current work
on expressing RDF in XHTML. I guess my ultimate opinion is that we should
wait and see how that works out before starting any new W3C linking
standards or trying to rewrite XLink. 

Bob

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: After XQuery, are we done?
    • From: Ben Trafford <ben@p...>

• Prev by Date: Re: UPA and schema handling
• Next by Date: RE: After XQuery, are we done?
• Previous by thread: RE: After XQuery, are we done?
• Next by thread: RE: After XQuery, are we done?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread