• From: sterling <sstouden@t...>
• To: Len Bullard <cbullard@h...>
• Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 09:47:01 -0500 (CDT)

What do you mean perma threads? 
is that within the w3 specifications?

On Mon, 25 Sep 2006, Len Bullard wrote:

> Yes it does.   Are you saying that associating semantics with the XLink
> markup are:
> 
>  
> 
> O incompletely associated/specified (not enough data)?
> 
> O over specified (too much data that you have to ignore)?
> 
> O not precise enough about the semantic/process associated (the problem is
> not the markup specification but the process specification)?
> 
>  
> 
> You are right that the whole point of indirect association is to specify a
> process.  Typically when a markup language becomes controversial, it is not
> because of the markup (trivial to model that) but because of the
> specification for the object that consumes it.  That is one reason for perma
> threads in XML: debating syntax and data declaration instead of object
> methods where the real problems of specification are harder and Not XML
> anyway.
> 
>  
> 
> len
> 
>  
> 
> 
> From: Nicholas.Ardlie@g... [mailto:Nicholas.Ardlie@g...]  
> 
>  
> 
> GML (Geography Markup Language) also relies on XLink for semantic
> association and represents a growing community, riding a gradual uptake of
> OGC WFS services.
> 
> With metadata standards rapidly maturing in this domain, the GML community
> is coming to a point where enterprise support for GML will require custom
> XLink models/processors.
> 
> Previous experiences with XLink have left me thinking that the effort/reward
> ratio is far too low.
> 
> I'm interested by the direction of this thread though.
> 
>  
> 
> Nick Ardlie
> 
> http://www.paleboundary.com <http://www.paleboundary.com/>  
> 
> 

• References:
  • RE: Xlink Isn't Dead
    • From: "Len Bullard" <cbullard@h...>