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

Re: Xlink Isn't Dead

• From: Ben Trafford <ben@p...>
• To: xml-dev@l...
• Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 20:02:06 -0400

At 07:17 PM 9/22/2006, Alexander Johannesen wrote:
>"I don't care about semantics; I only care about meaning!"

         That's actually not what I was saying, at all.

>Ontologies are data models (mostly used as systems of logic inference)

         I know what ontologies are. I just think that they represent 
the briar patch.

>that uses linking as _part_ of it. Linking by itself means very
>little, in HTML, XML or otherwise. I suspect this debate is once again

         Are you using "means" in the ontological sense? As in, the 
presence of link doesn't define what that link means?

>Nothing at all. It's *all* about the application of such, even in
>XHTML where it means *nothing* until the browser application use the
>data for something.

         Then we're in agreement.

>It sounds like
>you want there to be more generic application specific things in XML,
>not less. I'm of the "less" opinion, but only because, well, I'm in
>the ontologies camp. :)

         I actually don't see how you're finding a conflict between 
getting the styling languages to do something smart with links and 
the  modelling of more generic ontologies.

--->Ben 

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Xlink Isn't Dead
    • From: "Alexander Johannesen" <alexander.johannesen@g...>

• References:
  • RE: Xlink Isn't Dead
    • From: "Nathan Young -X \(natyoung - Artizen at Cisco\)" <natyoung@c...>
  • RE: Xlink Isn't Dead
    • From: "Bob DuCharme" <bob@s...>
  • RE: Xlink Isn't Dead
    • From: Ben Trafford <ben@p...>
  • Re: Xlink Isn't Dead
    • From: "Alexander Johannesen" <alexander.johannesen@g...>