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/
Cart
