[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Link guidance notes
I had another read through the document.
The following sentence appears twice in section 2.1:
Well behaved clients should gracefully handle resource types they don't expect when exercising links in resources.
Following on Jim's discussion at the last meeting regarding adding rich semantics to a link that goes beyond simple reification, what kind of approach are you considering? It seems to me we could achieve that result by creating a resource that represents the rich content for the link, then putting it between the source and target:
If A -> B is the link, and -> has some rich content, then create
A -> R -> B where R is a resource containing the rich content.
PTC Integrity currently uses a name and bit flags to represent the reified content - can't even add a timestamp to the relationship - and that works for our customers. If a customer requested richer content I would recommend the above approach but mostly because adding reification would be a challenge for us.
I'm interesting in hearing what you recommend Jim, if not the above approach.
R&D Fellow, PTC