Re: Relationship Taxonomy Questions

Joe English wrote:
> bosak@atlantic-83.eng.sun.com (Jon Bosak) wrote:
> > I personally have never seen anything specified in connection with a
> > link that could not be subsumed under some combination of these
> > categories; if anyone else can think of something, I sure would like
> > to know what it is.
> Another category of link behaviour is "transclusion" or
> "simultaneous presentation" linking.  

it can also be thought of and practically implemented 
as a "get" and avoid a lot of garbage description.

> With these types of links traversal is automatic, so there's
> no notion of presentation/state before/during/after traversal.

no.  it is implied and documented by axiom, in SGML practice, 
the comments or DTD documentation.
> > 2'. In particular, I think that it is of the utmost importance to
> > distinguish meaning (relationship typing) from behavior (which
> > includes presentation).  I think that the analogy between semantic
> > tagging vs. style information in SGML and relationship typing vs. link
> > behavior is an apt and powerful one.

And one not embraced by the majority of web applications.  They 
may know something.