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

Re: XLink and mixed vocabulary design

• To: Alaric B Snell <alaric@a...>
• Subject: Re: XLink and mixed vocabulary design
• From: Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@e...>
• Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 18:09:35 +0100
• Cc: XML Developer List <xml-dev@l...>
• In-reply-to: <40115539.1070909@a...>
• References: <15725CF6AFE2F34DB8A5B4770B7334EE03F9F1C3@h...> <401153B8.1030409@e...> <40115539.1070909@a...>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.6b) Gecko/20031205 Thunderbird/0.4

Alaric B Snell wrote:
> Robin Berjon wrote:
>>> Doesn't the http:// tell you there is a relationship? What am I missing?
>> Doesn't fly too well with relative references does it? ;) And even if 
>> you get rid of those, you're still really into the 
>> m/^(http|ftp|file|...):/i heuristics there.
> 
> <devils-advocate>
>   Perhaps you could dereference schemas for all of your input documents
>   and look for things of type anyURI rather than messing about with
>   heuristics?
> </devils-advocate>

Yuk (but you knew that). Besides, anyURI tells me there's a URI, not 
that there's a link.

RDDL+HLink would be quite suitable though.

-- 
Robin Berjon

• References:
  • RE: XLink and mixed vocabulary design
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
  • Re: XLink and mixed vocabulary design
    • From: Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@e...>
  • Re: XLink and mixed vocabulary design
    • From: Alaric B Snell <alaric@a...>

• 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