- From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
- Date: Tue, 04 Mar 1997 14:23:13 -0800
- To: w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
At 02:02 PM 3/4/97 -0800, Terry Allen wrote:
>Where is the current linking draft? I don't see it at
> http://www.textuality.com/sgml-erb/
>nor at
> http://www.w3.org/pub/WWW/MarkUp/SGML/Activity
Good point. Steve is just polishing up the latest and it should
be out any moment. As regards the terminology, including "resource",
there was a message on that on this list on Feb, 15, which I reproduce
below, to tide us over until the draft is up:
=============================================================
We spent most of the time on the issue of terminology detail.
Although this was not articulated formally, some underlying design
principles seem to have guided us:
1. We should re-use Web terminology where appropriate (thanks to
Dan for this input)
2. We should not be afraid of lengthier English compound constructions
as opposed to single words, when this makes things easier to
understand and explain (thanks to Liora)
3. We should distinguish clearly between terms for the
underlying Platonic concepts and those for the syntactic
constructs (thanks to Henry)
We had discovered that, even at this late date, there was still room for
confusion as to which bits were which; so Steve and I, inspired by
Henry, cooked up a simple picture that was very helpful:
<BOOK><A NAME="foo" HREF="http://x.com/y/z.html#SEC1">Click here</A></BOOK>
|------------------------------p0-----------------------------------------|
|------------------------p1----------------------------------|
|----------p2-------------------|
|----p3------------------|
|----p4-------------| |p5|
<BOOK><SEC ID="SEC1">Thank you for clicking to get here.</SEC></BOOK>
|------------------------------q0-----------------------------------|
|------------------------q1----------------------------|
1. The relationship which the "<A" element asserts the existence of is
called a "link".
There is an interesting ontological debate as to whether the
link is in fact the assertion, or whether the link already existed and
the linking machinery merely *describes* it, but it is probably not
necessary to resolve this for the purposes of the spec. I will
cheerfully argue this point with anyone as long as they keep buying
the necessary beer. WWW theory, as pointed out by Dan Connolly, is
explicit that the link *is* the assertion.
2. An XML or SGML element (example: p1) which serves as the
syntactic expression of a link is called a "linking element".
3. A participant in a link relationship (example: q1) is called a
"resource". Our definition will be very similar to the official
WWW definition, found in
http://www.w3.org/pub/WWW/Architecture/Terms
which everyone on this list should go and read. That definition is:
an addressable unit of information or service in the Web. Examples
include files, images, documents, programs, query results, etc.
In our case we should not limit it to "in the Web". Note that a
resource could include the results of an SQL query, a temporally
limited section of a video clip, or the invocation of a script that
flushes a toilet in Tuktoyaktuk.
There is an interesting debate, in the case of the example, as to
whether one or two resources are involved. Clearly, "q1" is a
resource. If there another resource, it is *probably* the linking
element itself, "p1". It is clear that in some cases (independent
links or out-of-line links or whatever), a linking element need
not be a resource. Unlike the ontological debate mentioned above,
we are going to have to decide this one to get a clean spec.
4. A string used to specify a resource (example: p3) is called a
"locator". It might be a name or an address or a query expression;
one way or another it is undeniably used to locate the resource.
5. An attribute containing a locator (example: p2), is called a
"locator attribute". Should we end up, in the case of multi-ended
links, using subelements to hold locators, they would be called
"locator elements".
Note that a few items that are labeled in the picture do not appear in
this discussion. They appear because our discussion revealed that we may
not be finished with the terminology battle; there may be some more
concepts that are worthwhile nailing down. My next message will present
these issues for further discussion.
Cheers, Tim Bray
tbray@textuality.com http://www.textuality.com/ +1-604-708-9592
>
>and I am confused by the use of "resource" in
>
>>4.a Should we make it clear that resources can point at a wide variety of
>things, and that some of the things can be plural?
>
>Is this the URI sense of "resource"? (which doesn't appear in drafts
>up through Feb 7)
>
>Regards,
> Terry Allen Electronic Publishing Consultant tallen[at]sonic.net
> specializing in Web publishing, SGML, and the DocBook DTD
> http://www.sonic.net/~tallen/
> A Davenport Group Sponsor: http://www.ora.com/davenport/index.html
>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 4 March 1997 17:54:16 UTC