Re: [ciq] Re: CIQ Specifications & XLink

["Ram Kumar" <kumar.sydney@gmail.com>]

David and Colin,

The enclosed document should give you the idea of what we wanted to
achieve with xLink. If we can use some other atlernative solution to this,
it will be great. I would like to keep xlink also as an option for linking
resources as XBRL wants interoperability with CIQ.

Any suggestions will be great.

Regards,

Ram


On 8/11/06, David RR Webber (XML) <david@drrw.info> wrote:
>
> Colin,
>
> I'm a great believer in KISS, and especially the power of simple plain-old
> XML!
>
> I think we need to understand better what Ram was seeing using the XLink
> does - in terms of functionality / goals.
>
> Once we understand that - then I'm sure we can optimize on ways to achieve
> that - without getting too exotic hopefully!
>
> Thanks, DW
>
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: RE: [ciq] Re: CIQ Specifications & XLink
> From: Colin.Wallis@ssc.govt.nz
> Date: Thu, August 10, 2006 8:17 pm
> To: ram.kumar@oasis-open.org, david@drrw.info
> Cc: kumar.sydney@gmail.com, ciq@lists.oasis-open.org,
> max.voskob@paradise.net.nz
>
> It's time to resurrect that email from Tony Coates that offers some other
> suggestions. It would seem that we are going to offer some alternatives to
> the optional xLnk (though I was not aware it was optional ..the spec gives
> it stronger emphasis.  Alternatives will need to have a good level of tool
> support - goes without saying really..
>
> This is what Tony said, and might give us a steer as to alternatives we
> could offer:
>
> <<In terms of the W3C, I think XLink is all but a dead spec.  XBRL is the
> only user of any importance.  The W3C's effort these days are directed at
> RDF & OWL.  Norman Walsh from Sun (& the W3C TAG) occasionally write
> thoughts about things that could be done with XLink, but I don't' think
> there is a lot of enthusiasm.
>
> So, in terms of namespace policy, my personal suggestion would be that you
> try do something compatible with RDF usage, and even think about moving to
> RDF if at all possible.  Now, I'm not an RDF expert.  If you need contacts,
> I could ask Norm Walsh who the best contact is.
>
> Cheers, Tony.
> --
> Anthony B. Coates
> Senior Partner
> Miley Watts LLP
> Experts In Data
> +44 (79) 0543 9026
> Data standards participant: ISO 20022 (ISO 15022 XML), ISO 19312, UN/CEFACT
> TMG, MDDL, FpML, UBL.>>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ram Kumar [mailto:ram.kumar@oasis-open.org]
> Sent: Friday, 11 August 2006 7:43 a.m.
> To: David RR Webber (XML)
> Cc: Ram Kumar; ciq@lists.oasis-open.org; Max Voskob
> Subject: Re: [ciq] Re: CIQ Specifications & XLink
>
> David,
> The reason why xlink is now important for CIQ is because of XBRL's
> requirement to interoperate with CIQ due to some end user requiements.
> We can have xlink optionally, and
> also another simple approach in CIQ that can be used instead of xlink.
> What do
> you think? If this sounds fine, what is this other simple approach to link
> resources?
> Any suggestions?
>
> Ram
>
> David RR Webber (XML) wrote:
> > Ram,
> >
> > I concur with Michael on this one.
> >
> > The only folks using Xlink that I know are the XBRL - and its almost a
> > deliberate choice there - since then you have to use a XBRL tool that
> > has Xlink support in it - creates a closed marketplace.
> >
> > I suggest that we look for other means here.
> >
> > The issue with general Xlink support for regular parsers - eg Xerxes
> > - is quite literally - how long is a piece of string?  With an XML
> > document - its finite - and hence has a local memory model.  When you
> > do Xlinks - you do not know what you are Xlinking (in the general
> > case).  Obviously in the case of XBRL its a finite closed world - so
> > that works OK.
> >
> > Perhaps we can use includes or imports - or use simple http URL links
> > inside comments - to provide the logical linkage you are after?  Also
> > - we now have the static area:
> >
> >  docs.oasis-open.org/ciq
> >
> > available to us - so we can reference to content there too - if you
> > need to associate?
> >
> > DW
> >
> >
> >     -------- Original Message --------
> >     Subject: [ciq] Re: CIQ Specifications & XLink
> >     From: "Ram Kumar" <kumar.sydney@gmail.com>
> >     Date: Thu, August 10, 2006 10:22 am
> >     To: michael.blaim@kremsresearch.at
> >     Cc: ciq@lists.oasis-open.org, "Max Voskob"
> >     <max.voskob@paradise.net.nz>
> >
> >     Dear Michael,
> >
> >     The reason we want to use XLink is that it simplifies providing
> >     links between multiple resources (e.g parties) and relationships
> >     between the resources that might exist in multiple documents.
> >
> >     Regards,
> >
> >     Ram
> >
> >     On 8/11/06, michael.blaim@kremsresearch.at
> >     <michael.blaim@kremsresearch.at> wrote:
> >     >
> >     > Dear Mr Kumar,
> >     >
> >     > We are currently working on an XML specification for customer
> >     (party)
> >     > information for travel and tourism with special focus on data
> >     protection and
> >     > security. We use xNL, xAL (v3.0) and xCRL (v2.0, but we are
> >     looking forward
> >     > to v3.0). These specifications really meet our requirements
> >     (flexibility,
> >     > scalability, granularity etc) so far. The one thing we are not
> >     sure of is
> >     > the XLink references. Although XLink is ideal for XML references
> >     in theory
> >     > we can't find a way to put it into practice (with processors,
> >     parsers etc).
> >     > So what is the reason for CIQ TC to use XLink?
> >     >
> >     > Best regards
> >     > Michael Blaim
> >     >
> >     > Research Fellow
> >     > Tourisms Research Center Krems
> >     > Hofrat Erben Str 4
> >     > 3500 Krems
> >     > Austria
> >     > phone: +43 2732 72177 25
> >     > fax: +43 2732 72177 21
> >     > mail: michael.blaim@kremsresearch.at
> >     > web: http://www.kremsresearch.at
> >     >
> >     > anet - austrian network for e-tourism
> >     > http://www.anet-network.at
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >

CIQ TC - Party Relationships Specification V3.0.dot