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

RE: Linkbases, Topic Maps,and RDF Knowledge Bases -- help me und erstand

• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• To: "Eve L. Maler" <eve.maler@e...>, xml-dev <xml-dev@l...>
• Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 10:03:53 -0500

To quote http://www.w3.org/TR/xlink2rdf/

"Both XLink [XLink] and RDF [RDF] provide a way of asserting relations
between resources. RDF is primarily for describing resources and their
relations, while XLink is primarily for specifying and traversing
hyperlinks."

So one is a specification for a description and one is a control.  That
paragraph is odd because 
it would seem the natural order of things would be to harvest RDF of Xlinks,
not the other way around.
The power is in the intended application, not the syntax.  As to
colonization success, the world of 
applications is full of treeviews.  The problem of RDF is justifying the
cost of creating 
that much metadata over harvesting extant data to create controls, which is
what we do 
in more cases.  I seldom need a URI to name a relationship.  I often need a
standard 
object for describing the traversal rules for executing a query.

Len 
http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard

Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h


-----Original Message-----
From: Eve L. Maler [mailto:eve.maler@e...]

Even though XLink and RDF are targeted at different purposes, it's still a 
fair observation that XLink has a lot (not all) of the power of RDF.

• Prev by Date: Re: Linkbases, Topic Maps,and RDF Knowledge Bases -- help me understand, please
• Next by Date: Re: Linkbases, Topic Maps,and RDF Knowledge Bases -- help me understand, please
• Previous by thread: Re: Linkbases, Topic Maps,and RDF Knowledge Bases -- help me understand, please
• Next by thread: RE: Linkbases, Topic Maps,and RDF Knowledge Bases -- help me und erstand, please
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread