- From: Eve L. Maler <Eve.Maler@east.sun.com>
- Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 11:50:04 -0400
- To: w3c-xml-linking-ig@w3.org, www-rdf-interest@w3.org
- Cc: sergey Melnik <melnik@db.stanford.edu>, stefan Decker <stefan@db.stanford.edu>
Ron, this is a fantastic effort; thanks. I have some editorial comments that I'll write up when I have some real time, but for now, here are some reactions to the technical aspects: - Do we need to cover linkbase lists (which have now shrunk down to a special arcrole) explicitly? Or will the mechanism for harvesting statements out of arcroles suffice? - In some cases, you've proposed XLink properties (xlink:label, xlink:title, and so on). Do we need a complete set for all XLink-related semantics? Can they be "virtual" (that is, without an actual resource that can be retrieved), or do we need to supply some resource -- perhaps an XLink RDF schema? - I'm not familiar with the RDF practice of constructing a predicate out of an element type. (I should read up on it, but need to catch a plane soon...) Is it "safe"? E.g., if the element type is just an NCName, does it still work? Has this method been generally received well? - I'm not sure it's a good idea to provide a description of how to synthesize a canonical XPointer. Can we get away with not doing this? At the least, I wouldn't want it to be a "must." What is the "special handling of title elements" relative to synthesizing XPointers? - I think that the whole title element, not just its contents, should be the object of an RDF statement. There might be important attributes on the element, such as xml:lang, that help you decide how to handle it. - I do think behavior attributes should be handled along with everything else. But why not associate them with the arc, instead of the ending resource as you suggest? They're a property of traversal, not of one resource or the other. - If there's any reason at all to make the harvested statements a Set instead of a Bag, we'd have to define a canonical harvesting order, yes? Eve At 10:29 AM 5/13/00 -0700, Ron Daniel wrote: >I think that a lot of the issues in making a mapping >from XLinks to RDF statements have been covered in >various messages on and off various lists. Rather than >recapitulate those discussions, I think the fastest way >to get to adding an Appendix to the XLink spec is to >draft one and have people start to critique it. > >So, here's a first draft. People should feel free to >critique it, you are not going to hurt my feelings. > >Ron -- Eve Maler +1 781 442 3190 Sun Microsystems XML Technology Center elm @ east.sun.com
Received on Thursday, 18 May 2000 11:49:55 UTC