That’s
right. The process is the harder problem and can’t (shouldn’t?) be
addressed by a linking spec alone.
I’m not sure how I feel about
whether XLink associations are over-specified or incompletely specified.
Maybe the mix is about right, but from the
‘Camp 2’ point of view the links, in any form, end up a black box.
(which comes back to process I guess).
Eric’s comment re: XTM seemed about
right to me when he wrote:-
<quote>
Using XLink to simulate extended links
with a bunch of simple links looks to me like saying: "OK; we'll take the
syntax so that we can say we are compliant but we'll attach a slightly
different meaning".
If I am right, XTM can hardly pretend to
be using XLink :) ...
OTH, if I am wrong, the XLink
recommendation should better have defined simple links only and explained how
extended links can be built from simple links.
</quote>
But it’s hard to think of how to use
xlink associations without attaching that “slightly different meaning”.
Nick.
-----Original
Message-----
From: Len Bullard
[mailto:cbullard@h...]
Sent: Monday,
25 September 2006 7:57
PM
To: Ardlie Nicholas;
xml-dev@l...
Subject: RE: Xlink Isn't
Dead
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/