[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] Indexes: Main | Date | Thread | Author

[ba-ohs-talk] Fwd: Re: [xml-dev] XLinks

This is a couple of emails bashed into one to show the thread, best read 
bottom up.  Near the top, Multivalent comes into play.  This discussion 
seems appropriate to HyperScope.
Jack    (01)

At 02:00 PM 3/16/2002 -0500, Thomas Passin wrote:
>[W. Hugh Chatfield I.S.P>
> > Ted Nelson (although he thinks XML is a mistake
> > http://www.xml.com/pub/a/w3j/s3.nelson.html)
>In this (pre-xml) reference, Nelson advocates having the equivalent of
>markup contained in a separate document rather than inline with the main
>document.  He says that this would constrain the structure of the base
>document less than inline markup would.  It's interesting that the
>Multivalent approach does just that for annotations and notes:
>Of course, you still have to connect parts of the overlay to their
>corresponding parts in the  base document, which Nelson imagines you would
>do by counting bytes - the Multivalent approach uses its own document model
>combined with what they call "Robust Locations" to accomplish this.
>Tom P    (02)

>To: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
>From: "Christopher R. Maden" <crism@maden.org>
>Subject: Re: [xml-dev] XLinks
><snip>    (03)

>Hash: SHA1
>At 06:22 AM 3/15/02, Len Bullard wrote:
> >Maybe I am just getting foggy in my dotage, but do we
> >need Xlinks if we use relational dbs and if so, for what
> >other than perhaps a convenient transport representation?
>"If it ain't broke, don't fix it."  If you've got a linkbase that works
>fine now, go with it - there is no need for you to use XLink except, as you
>say, as "a convenient transport representation."
>Of course, in many senses, XML itself is "just" a "convenient transport
>representation," with data coming from databases, generated from the state
>of some process, or otherwise not existing natively as pointy brackets.
>Of course, I think you knew this - but thanks for the leading question. (-:
>~Chris    (04)

At 11:04 AM 3/16/2002 -0500, Hugh Chatfield wrote:
>I have access to the WWW..
>I have an SQL database...
>I am aware of the need to multiply link resources on the WWW.. perhaps first
>described in Vannevar Bush's "As We May Think" article in Atlantic Monthly
>1945 - where he envisioned the creation of an external "named trail" that
>could be shared (although he saw it as linking microfilm frames - but same
>difference - it was 1945 after all)
>( see
>Yet I still can't build and share these links...
>Building would take a bit of programming but it seems to me that the sharing
>part insists on some level of abstraction completely divorced from the
>underlying implementation technologies.
>A document I create in "Electric Pencil" can't easily be shared - but if I
>could save it as XML, then it can more easily.
>A "Vannevar Trail" I create using some local code using a relational DB
>system can't be easily shared  - but if I could save it as XLink, then it
>can more easily.
>So I think you are right... XLink may only be a convenient transport layer
>(in the same way XML may only be a convenient transport layer for content).
>Ted Nelson (although he thinks XML is a mistake
>http://www.xml.com/pub/a/w3j/s3.nelson.html) considered the visible display
>of links to be of some importance (see http://xanadu.com/cosmicbook/ ).
>Methinks he is right as well.
>The real problem seems to be what to do with these things - how to share
>them - how to process them - how to display them .. not what particular
>underlying technology could be used for implementation.
>W. Hugh Chatfield  I.S.P.
>CyberSpace Industries 2000 Inc.
>XML Consulting & Training
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) [mailto:clbullar@ingr.com]
>Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 9:23 AM
>To: 'Leigh Dodds'; xml-dev
>Subject: [xml-dev] XLinks
>On reading Bob DuCharme's article on "XLinks, Who Cares?"    (05)

http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2002/03/13/xlink.html    (06)

>I am struck that he leaves out the argument that is to me
>a primary reason XLink isn't taking off.  Many of us use
>relational systems on the server that handle metadata
>relationships in tables.  Many of the tasks that an XLink
>database is good for can be easily handled with a table
>that contains URLs as database types.
>Maybe I am just getting foggy in my dotage, but do we
>need Xlinks if we use relational dbs and if so, for what
>other than perhaps a convenient transport representation?
>len    (07)