Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Michael Champion <michaelc.champion@g...> writes: > > On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 14:44:23 -0700, Ronald Bourret > <rpbourret@r...> wrote: > > > For example, given the element <part>123</part>, it would > be nice to > > link this with a document containing more information about > part 123, > > but XQuery would need to know where to go looking for that document. > > > > One possibility is some sort of external document containing link > > information, > > That's what an ontology does, I think. Not link information, > but relationship information, which could be used by an > application to follow links, or generate XQuery, DOM, XSLT, > or whatever to leverage the relationship information. Not > that I'm going to channel Ted Nelson and suggest that simple > one way HTML hyperlinks are evil, but I think I can defend > the proposition that in a world where XQuery (or maybe just > XPath2, not sure ...) and OWL exist and are widely supported, > XLink doesn't add much if anything. Yes, I think you're right. > > On a related point, I think it would be nice to be able to > just say, > > "This is a link," without any of the additional explanatory > > information that XLink gives (type, role, etc.). The > advantage of this > > is simplicity, and it really isn't that unreasonable when you think > > about > > it: Most interpretation of XML documents is application > specific anyway, > > so why should links be any different? > > Agree! So should that be a core part of some future XML, or > a small supplemental spec on the order XML Base, or what? > > So, the "this is a link" namespace or whatever for simple > things, and OWL for the times when you really do need to > specify the direction, type, role, etc. of a relationship, maybe? Somehow OWL doesn't sound like an application specific implementation of relationship management to me? I agree that it's a solution for at least some of this puzzle, but I think you're wandering the opposite direction from where Mr. Bourret wants to go?
|
