• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: RDDL
• From: "Clark C . Evans" <cce@c...>
• Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 20:27:24 -0500
• In-reply-to: <043d01c19f8d$83e7dba0$2cd0a340@paultx>; from pault12@p... on Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 11:31:09AM -0800
• References: <NCBBKFMJCLIMOBIGKFMJEEPGHAAA.ldodds@i...> <043d01c19f8d$83e7dba0$2cd0a340@paultx>
• User-agent: Mutt/1.2.5i

On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 11:31:09AM -0800, Paul T wrote:
| Why should I call *purpose* *arcrole*, if it is *purpose* 

I believe the RDDL spec here is defining an application of 
xlink.   Thus, the spec would like to use the word "purpose" 
and "nature", to maintain compatibility with with xlink, 
RDDL must use "role" and "arcrole" instead. 

...

This made me think that for "mixing" schema, it might
be nice to allow some way to do some inheritance
such that "rddl:purpose" overrides "xlink:role" so
that a xlink (but not rddl) aware browser could
show the rddl:purpose as an xlink...   I'm not a 
schema person; but is something like this in the 
works?  or is it just acedemically interesting?

Best,

Clark

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: RDDL
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• References:
  • RDDL (was RE: Negotiate Out The Noise)
    • From: "Leigh Dodds" <ldodds@i...>
  • Re: RDDL (was RE: Negotiate Out The Noise)
    • From: Paul T <pault12@p...>

• Prev by Date: Re: RDDL (was RE: Negotiate Out The Noise)
• Next by Date: Re: RDDL
• Previous by thread: Re: RDDL (was RE: Negotiate Out The Noise)
• Next by thread: Re: RDDL
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread