Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
At 11:44 AM 4/6/01 -0600, uche.ogbuji@f... wrote:
>Oh, no. Strong disagreement, not offence. I'm quite happy once again to
>be discussing matters that interest me on this august forum.
That's good!
>Containers are one matter that I tend to group into the not-so-useful RDF
>category (at least until the "_1", "_2" mess is sorted out), but these
>could also be simulated in XLink using XPointer and a special container
>element vocabulary.
>
>Not that I'd consider it a good idea to do so.
>...
>My point was not that RDF is better than XLink. My
>disagreement was with your assertion that XLink provides most of the power
>of RDF. This is not true; nor is it true that RDF provides much of the
>power of XLink. They both have quite different strengths. I personally
>use each of them heavily, and I wouldn't dream of using RDF to implement
>content links, which is what XLink does very effectively.
>...
I had been thinking of RDF's "big idea" (the sound-bite view, the big thing
it brings to the table) as assertions -- the tripartate notion of subject,
predicate, and object. Since XLink has a way of conveying assertions in
the form of resource/locator metadata and (most particularly) arc metadata,
I figured it would be fair to say that XLink has most of the power of RDF
-- if you really want to use it that way. This is no doubt too
reductionist. But is it wrong?
(I should mention that even though the xlink2rdf paper is just a Note, I
kind of see it as the "official" explication of RDF semantics in XLink,
particularly when it comes to using rdf:type in mapping resource/locator
roles. I'm a little sorry we didn't keep going and make this normative,
but we ran out of steam. It's there if someone wants to keep working on
it, though...)
Eve
--
Eve Maler +1 781 442 3190
Sun Microsystems XML Technology Development eve.maler @ east.sun.com
|
