Re: Last call on XLink -> RDF mapping

Ron Daniel wrote:

> For the purposes of turning XML documents containing XLinks
> into RDF, we can't rely on that rule being followed. Therefore,
> you are correct that the right rule should be to add a character
> such as # or / or ? if the namespace URI does not already end
> in one. I'll make that change.

> [Ron Daniel]  Whoops. Good catch. I'll reverse those.
> Thanks also for your earlier comments. I did not see
> any of them asking for changes in the document, is that
> correct? (FYI, on ChildSeq for the synthesized XPointer...
> ChildSeq can start with a NAME, which is to be the value
> of an attribute of type ID. That is probably the best
> way to identify elements if possible.)
Glad to be of help. I'll make the changes to the XSLT. Some of my comments
were just public moaning, that, no, don't require changes to document, but
thanks for listening :-)

I think that you are doing the right thing by suggesting but not mandating
ChildSeq. Perhaps instead of using the term "should" use ChildSeq, you might
say "ChildSeq is recommended", or somesuch. The problem I can forsee with
ChildSeq is that, for example, if changes are made to the parent XML
document, but not to the xlinks themselves, the ChildSeq's are going to
change. I'm not sure that this will cause a problem, just my sense that
xpointers try to be as invariant *as reasonably possible* to changes in the
XML document.

Jonathan Borden
The Open Healthcare Group

Received on Thursday, 14 September 2000 14:30:13 UTC