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

RE: After XQuery, are we done?

• To: <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: After XQuery, are we done?
• From: Ben Trafford <ben@p...>
• Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 12:13:18 -0400
• In-reply-to: <FEF4858E8AB32D4EAC2CF2A7D85386EB0B2542A5@l...>
• References: <FEF4858E8AB32D4EAC2CF2A7D85386EB0B2542A5@l...>

At 11:56 AM 10/22/2004, DuCharme, Bob (LNG-CHO) wrote:
>Perhaps "representing relationships" would be the lower-hanging fruit, but
>we don't need a new standard to say that resource X has relationship Y to
>resource Z; we've got RDF for that.

         I couldn't disagree more.

         The example of the Web demonstrates that usage will come from 
simplicity. If I have a specification that says, "Add an attribute of 
href='foo' to anything and it becomes a link," people will use it.

         You're proposing we say, "Look, you want links? Well, first write 
yourself a DTD. Then a stylesheet. Oh, and by the way, you'll need to write 
an RDF vocabularly to represent the data relationships, too. Hope you like 
colons!"

         Somehow, I just don't think people will be jumping on that bandwagon.

         A linking specification needs to be simpler. But think about it: 
if the styling people actually add linking mechanisms into their 
specifications, it'd work with RDF -and- a simpler linking 
specification...and everything else, too.

         That's a win/win scenario, as far as I can tell.

--->Ben 

• References:
  • RE: After XQuery, are we done?
    • From: "DuCharme, Bob (LNG-CHO)" <bob.ducharme@l...>

• Prev by Date: RE: XML Data Modellling/Linking (was RE: After XQuery, are we done?)
• Next by Date: RE: XML Data Modellling/Linking
• Previous by thread: RE: After XQuery, are we done?
• Next by thread: RE: After XQuery, are we done?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread