[sc34wg3] XLink support in XTM

[Lars Marius Garshol]

* Murray Altheim
>
> I've never heard the argument against XLink explained, except that
> it somehow is considered more complicated than not having it

Correct.

> (which is demonstrably only the matter of having to specify an  
> additional
> namespace, if XLink 1.1 is used).

I think you need to reread my postings on this. I listed many more  
problems.

> As I stated, this is a false economy, as for the price of admission  
> one is getting a readymade link model, one approved as the linking  
> model for XML by the W3C.

I've asked you before what XTM needs a linking model for, but have so  
far received no reply.

> I've not heard an answer to my query, [...]

What query?

> so I'm assuming that in the absence of XLink, XTM 2.0 would simply  
> not specify any linking model at all in the standard?

If I understand correctly what you mean by linking model, then yes.

> I.e., if the alink model, syntax and behaviour provided by XLink  
> are abandoned, the ISO standard would simply leave a hole where  
> XLink was? Or do you have some substitute text planned?

The "new" text was written in December, and can be seen at
   http://www.isotopicmaps.org/sam/sam-xtm/

The goal of that text is to provide an exact and unambiguous  
definition of what is and is not legal in XTM 2.0, and how instances  
map to the TMDM. No more, and no less. If a linking model comes into  
that in any way, I have to confess that I don't know how, and someone  
will have to explain it to me.

--
Lars Marius Garshol, Ontopian               http://www.ontopia.net
+47 98 21 55 50                             http://www.garshol.priv.no