>
> A few ruminations concerning the issues that Siggy has raised:
>
> I think its important to note that there are two major areas dealt with
> in the Relation Working Group report. One is the set of RelationType
> semantics elaborated by this group. Unless I misunderstand Siggy's
> concerns, this is not the subject of his concern. The second issue is
> syntax (you sense the angry rumblings of jealous gods, old and young,
> reverberating through the ether).
No Stu, this isn't altogether about syntax. If the RFC-1 specifies that
Relation is
An identifier of a second resource and its relationship to the
present resource. This element permits links between related
resources and resource descriptions to be indicated.
then there shouldn't be a subelement called "Identifier". Is this is a
matter of syntax?
Siggy
|