[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: XML Data Modellling/Linking (was RE: AfterXQuery,
Dave Pawson <davep@d...> writes: > > On Mon, 2004-10-25 at 01:50, Michael Champion wrote: > > On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 14:44:23 -0700, Ronald Bourret > > <rpbourret@r...> wrote: > > > > > For example, given the element <part>123</part>, it would > be nice to > > > link this with a document containing more information about part > > > 123, but XQuery would need to know where to go looking for that > > > document. > > > > > > One possibility is some sort of external document containing link > > > information, > > > > That's what an ontology does, I think. Not link information, but > > relationship information, which could be used by an application to > > follow links, or generate XQuery, DOM, XSLT, or whatever to > leverage > > the relationship information. > > That sounds a lot better than links to me; relationship > information. Some apps may want to generate hyperlinks from > the combination of relationships and document(s), others may > do other things as Peter suggests. > > So there are now three things. > doc.xml > relationships.xml > and > application.exe which plays with combinations of the above > using some collection of todays tools. Seems reasonable, but somehow I can't stop from feeling building application.exe "using some collection of todays tools" is akin to saying "here magic happens"? See below... > > > > > On a related point, I think it would be nice to be able > to just say, > > > "This is a link," without any of the additional explanatory > > > information that XLink gives (type, role, etc.). > I'd put these into application.exe? I want to show this > relationship in this specific way for that specific purpose? > Sort of configuration information for application.exe? > > > > The advantage of this is > > > simplicity, and it really isn't that unreasonable when you think > > > about > > > it: Most interpretation of XML documents is application > specific anyway, > > > so why should links be any different? > > I like that. > > > > > Agree! So should that be a core part of some future XML, > or a small > > supplemental spec on the order XML Base, or what? > > I'll leave that to others :-) > But I do like it 'outside' my xml instance. > Keeps the xml instance nice and simple? I've only got points > (id's?) and Gavin tells me they could equally well be put in > the relationships.xml document[1]. KISS principle? > Would that mix nicely with XML-- which steps gracefully > from docHead world to dataHead world? No id/idref pairs? > Ok, even if "todays tools" do what Gavin suggests, you've got a bootstrap problem: how do you know what combinations of documents to use together? Some fourth linking document? Some instance information inside one of the documents? in the form of a link? An addressable ontology somewhere (pointed to by what)? > > > > So, the "this is a link" namespace or whatever for simple > things, and > > OWL for the times when you really do need to specify the direction, > > type, role, etc. of a relationship, maybe? > > Or something quite simple and in between until the need for > the OWL's wisdom is perceived? I'm not sure it's until "OWL's wisdom is perceived", but rather "until OWL's processing overhead can be afforded for general use", but either way, a stop gap would be nice...
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|