[sc34wg3] XTM 2.0: resourceRef vs. resourceData, embedded XML

[Steve Pepper]

| * Lars Heuer
| >
| > - resourceRef vs. resourceData
| >   Is this distinction necessary? Why is the datatype xsd:anyURI  
| >   handled seperately from every other datatype?

* Lars Marius Garshol
|
| 
| There are two reasons for this:
| 
|    1) Historical baggage. Conceptually, external occurrences have been
|       given considerable prominence in Topic Maps. Giving them an extra
|       element emphasizes this.
| 
|    2) Convenience. External occurrences occur very frequently in XTM,
|       and this saves having to put in the datatype URI.
| 
| Having said that, neither argument is terribly strong, admittedly.

I'd say 2) is as strong as the one for privileging type-instance
relationships by allowing <instanceOf> subelements inside <topic>.
In both cases it's about "syntactic sugar" for constructs that are
used repeatedly. There's nothing wrong in that.

And I'd say 1) is imprecise. I would rephrase it thus:

    1) Conceptual clarity. The distinction between internal and
       external occurrences is important in Topic Maps. Giving
       them separate element type emphasizes this.

That gives us two excellent reasons for retaining <resourceRef>
as is.

Steve

--
Steve Pepper <pepper at ontopia.net>
Chief Strategy Officer, Ontopia
Convenor, ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3
Coordinator, W3C RDF/TM Task Force