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

RE: After XQuery, are we done?

• To: "Gavin Thomas Nicol" <gtn@r...>,"XML Developers List" <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: After XQuery, are we done?
• From: "Hunsberger, Peter" <Peter.Hunsberger@S...>
• Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 10:06:35 -0500
• Thread-index: AcS5ayV7v37pdDplTTWqCAu1g+SwRABNxnag
• Thread-topic: After XQuery, are we done?

Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@r...> writes:

> On Oct 22, 2004, at 11:22 AM, Michael Kay wrote:
> 
> > Hyperlinks belong in the user interface space, XML should represent 
> > information independently of the user interface. It was always 
> > architecturally wrong to do hyperlinking at the XML level and the 
> > attempt should not be repeated.
> >
> > "Modelling relationships in XML" - that would be different.
> 
> What is a hyperlink if not a relationship? The interpretation and 
> presentation are obviously application-specific, but...

I don't think anyone is debating that a hyperlink describes a particular
limited form of relationship.  There are two issues at hand: 

1) how to manage bi-directional relationships?

2) what to do with many to many relationships?

<opinion type="myopic mathematical bias"> 

The way I see it, the real question in this thread is how do we move
from exchanging limited hierarchical models represented in XML towards
exchanging some more universal graph representations? 

</opinion>

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: After XQuery, are we done?
    • From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@r...>

• Prev by Date: RE: XML Data Modellling/Linking (was RE: AfterXQuery, are we done?)
• Next by Date: Re: More questions about conformance and entities
• Previous by thread: RE: After XQuery, are we done?
• Next by thread: Re: After XQuery, are we done?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread