Re: [xtm-wg] ANNOUNCE: Update of XTM Repository (new XTM prototype DTD)

["Steven R. Newcomb" <srn@coolheads.com>]

[Graham Moore:]
> I would be interested in hearing peoples thoughts on the idea that topics
> are not containers for occurrences, that occurences can be seen as links
> between topics and reified resources.

I think that conclusion is pretty much explicit in the proposed XTM
syntax that's on the table right now.

> And that topic is not a link in the xlink sense, in fact in any
> sense.

Ditto.  All that's left of XLink (or HyTime linking, for that matter)
is just what was really needed: <topicRef> and <resourceRef>, which
are both xlink:type="simple".  There really wasn't any choice but to
abandon the idea of using xlink:type="extended", for reasons that
I'm too pressed for time to discuss right here and now.

We've come a long way since HyTime.  For one thing, the topic maps
work recognizes that simple strings aren't always adequate
representations of the roles played in the relationships that can be
specified by hyperlink elements.  The evolution of topic maps can be
seen as an evolving view of the requirements of hyperlinking.  The
topic map syntax as a whole can be seen as a revolutionary way of
thinking about hyperlinking in general.

So, it might be too strong to say that <topic> is not a link in *any*
sense.  I prefer to see it as one of a set of topic map constructs
that, while not exactly *hyperlinks*, sure do take over where
hyperlinks leave off.

-Steve

--
Steven R. Newcomb, Consultant
srn@coolheads.com

voice: +1 972 359 8160
fax:   +1 972 359 0270

405 Flagler Court
Allen, Texas 75013-2821 USA

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/1/_/337252/_/973707348/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

To Post a message, send it to:   xtm-wg@eGroups.com

To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: xtm-wg-unsubscribe@eGroups.com