[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 12:32:35 -0400
• In-reply-to: <FEF4858E8AB32D4EAC2CF2A7D85386EB0B2542A8@l...>
• References: <FEF4858E8AB32D4EAC2CF2A7D85386EB0B2542A8@l...>

At 12:33 PM 10/22/2004, DuCharme, Bob (LNG-CHO) wrote:
>Looks like we've got two threads going. I never said any of that, but
>interestingly I did agree with you in the other thread that stylesheets have
>a lot of value. All I said was that RDF provides a way to say that resource
>X has relationship Y to resource Z. We don't need DTDs, stylesheets or
>especially new RDF vocabularies to express such a relationship statement.

         So, you're suggesting a single RDF syntax to define hypertext 
relationships?

         I'm confused.

>We do need a usable RDF syntax. Of the various alternatives, I certainly
>won't defend RDF/XML, and I look forward to the results of the current work
>on expressing RDF in XHTML. I guess my ultimate opinion is that we should
>wait and see how that works out before starting any new W3C linking
>standards or trying to rewrite XLink.

         Why?

--->Ben 

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

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