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

RE: XML Data Modellling/Linking (was RE: AfterXQuery

• To: "Michael Champion" <michaelc.champion@g...>,"Ronald Bourret" <rpbourret@r...>
• Subject: RE: XML Data Modellling/Linking (was RE: AfterXQuery, are we done?)
• From: "Hunsberger, Peter" <Peter.Hunsberger@S...>
• Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 11:01:24 -0500
• Cc: <xml-dev@l...>
• Thread-index: AcS6LUxG2vveSEj0QV6rLqY7WCRvzwAfojcw
• Thread-topic: XML Data Modellling/Linking (was RE: AfterXQuery, are we done?)

Michael Champion <michaelc.champion@g...> writes:
> 
> 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.  Not 
> that I'm going to channel Ted Nelson and suggest that simple 
> one way HTML hyperlinks are evil, but I think I can defend 
> the proposition that in a world where XQuery (or maybe just 
> XPath2, not sure ...) and OWL exist and are widely supported, 
> XLink doesn't add much if anything.
 
Yes, I think you're right. 
 
> > 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.). 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?
> 
> Agree!  So should that be a core part of some future XML, or
> a small supplemental spec on the order XML Base, or 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?

Somehow OWL doesn't sound like an application specific implementation of
relationship management to me?  I agree that it's a solution for at
least some of this puzzle, but I think you're wandering the opposite
direction from where Mr. Bourret wants to go?

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