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

xlink vs sml:URI

From: <zamp\@libero\.it>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 18:03:35 +0100
Message-Id: <JWWQ1Z$41A7CBCA34B8A379B1BE8E623764CEAC@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 Thursday, 28 February 2008 02:56:03 UTC

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