Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
To quote http://www.w3.org/TR/xlink2rdf/ "Both XLink [XLink] and RDF [RDF] provide a way of asserting relations between resources. RDF is primarily for describing resources and their relations, while XLink is primarily for specifying and traversing hyperlinks." So one is a specification for a description and one is a control. That paragraph is odd because it would seem the natural order of things would be to harvest RDF of Xlinks, not the other way around. The power is in the intended application, not the syntax. As to colonization success, the world of applications is full of treeviews. The problem of RDF is justifying the cost of creating that much metadata over harvesting extant data to create controls, which is what we do in more cases. I seldom need a URI to name a relationship. I often need a standard object for describing the traversal rules for executing a query. Len http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti. Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h -----Original Message----- From: Eve L. Maler [mailto:eve.maler@e...] Even though XLink and RDF are targeted at different purposes, it's still a fair observation that XLink has a lot (not all) of the power of RDF.
|
