[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

RE: XLink and mixed vocabulary design

• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: RE: XLink and mixed vocabulary design
• From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 11:44:03 -0500
• In-reply-to: <FEF4858E8AB32D4EAC2CF2A7D85386EBE531B8@l...>

bob.ducharme@l... (DuCharme, Bob (LNG-CHO)) writes:

>>2) Create a mapping between formats A, B, C, etc., or possibly from
>>those formats to a new format _if_ a hub seems more useful that
>>connecting all the pieces individually.
>
>If the hub is more useful, it will be because it's a form of linking,
>generalized from formats A, B, and C, that can be shared among users
>of A, B, and, C. I was going to say "Aha! So you admit that
>generalized linking can work!" but of course what works for A, B, and
>C, won't necessarily work for X, Y, and Z. I suppose the dream of
>something generalized enough to work for A - Z is unrealistic, but I
>like to hope that there might be something that works for A - T (80/20
>rule and all that). That's why any such efforts attract my attention.

I think the hub - and likely multiple hubs - has to be allowed to
evolve, not derived by committee and imposed.  

The 80/20 rule, while a hopeful indicator, seems to produce different
result for everyone looking at a problem set, especially one as complex
as linking.

• References:
  • RE: XLink and mixed vocabulary design
    • From: "DuCharme, Bob (LNG-CHO)" <bob.ducharme@l...>

• Prev by Date: Re: XLink and mixed vocabulary design
• Next by Date: RE: XLink and mixed vocabulary design
• Previous by thread: RE: XLink and mixed vocabulary design
• Next by thread: RE: XLink and mixed vocabulary design
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread