W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sml@w3.org > February 2008

xlink vs sml:URI

From: <zamp\@libero\.it>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 18:00:00 +0100
Message-Id: <JWWPW0$AE68F93B7E8CBF7463396615B6A11183@libero.it>
To: "public-sml" <public-sml@w3.org>

I All,

recently I have read SML specification and in particular sml reference me=
chanism in XML instance document. However I don't understand the reason o=
f introducing a new mechanism instead of using xlink.

Are there some advantages in using sml:ref?
If yes...which ones?

That is to say...about this example:

<EnrolledCourse sml:ref=3D"true">
    <Name>PHY101</Name>
    <Grade>A</Grade>
    <sml:uri>     http://www.university.example.org/Universities/MIT/Cour=
ses.xml
		#xmlns(u=3Dhttp://www.university.example.org/ns)
		xpointer(/u:Courses/u:Course[u:Name=3D'PHY101'])
    </sml:uri>
</EnrolledCourse>

Why not like that?

<EnrolledCourse>
    <Name>PHY101</Name>
    <Grade>A</Grade>
    <environment xmlns:xlink=3D"http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" 
        xlink:type=3D"extended">
        <course xlink:type=3D"locator" xlink:label=3D"course"
xlink:href=3D"http://www.university.example.org/Universities/MIT/Courses.=
xml
	    #xmlns(u=3Dhttp://www.university.example.org/ns)		    xpointer(/u:Co=
urses/u:Course[u:Name=3D'PHY101'])"/>
    </enviroment>
</EnrolledCourse>



Best regards..

Travis
Received on Wednesday, 27 February 2008 19:50:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:56:09 UTC