- 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