Article:		XLink: Who Cares?
Subject:		missing pieces
Date:		2002-03-19 22:00:17
From:		Adrian Edwards
Response to: missing pieces
Not sure that lack of a data model is the real reason behind the icy community response. The HyTime standard (ISO/IEC 10744:1992), which included linking formalisms for SGML that parallel XLink's for XML, added a very rigorous data model known as the ‘grove paradigm’ [1] with its Second Edition (ISO/IEC 10744:1997), yet has suffered a similar (and similarly undeserving IMHO) fate. Perhaps we need to look elsewhere to identify why XLink has not caught on. I believe that the most significant contributing factor in XLink's stagnation is the lack of an evangelical core community that Bob rightly highlights in his article. Is it a coincidence that the most recently updated page on the http://www.hytime.org site that Bob links is 31 August 1999? No. The key intellectual figures in generalised hypertext markup in the nineties: Newcomb, Kimber, DeRose, Prescod and Biezunski, celebrated the new millennium by forming their own consulting companies and abandoning HyTime and XLink on the speaking circuit. Those most capable of playing the role for XLink that say It is also no coincidence that these figures (Newcomb and Biezunski in particular) are now largely responsible for the "almost exasperating" current level of exposure for Topic Maps at industry conferences. Where would XLink be if the same energy and experience were brought to bear evangelising its virtues? Perhaps in no better position than HyTime, although the relative simplicity of XLink does give one some hope that it could appeal to the mass market, given the right publicity. Perhaps however, as admitted in XLink’s own 'Design Principles' [2] "... certain functionality, in particular out-of-line link handling with extended document groups, is inherently difficult." [1] http://www.prescod.net/groves/shorttut/ [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/NOTE-xlink-principles#1.9

Previous Message

Up

Next Message