Drummond reminded me that $ref or $rep preclude not only literal but any other child nodes. This is such a strong constraint that a node originating a $ref or $rep looks to me less like other context nodes, and if anything more like literal nodes. Can we make them an additional category of nodes, on a par with context nodes and literal nodes? Better yet, can we subsume literal nodes and alias nodes (originating a $ref or $rep) under a category called value nodes.
On May 3, 2013, at 3:56 PM, Drummond Reed <> wrote:
Markus, I was just discussing this with Joseph and I think he's got a point that, in that proposal, we'd be better off calling them equivalence arcs than equivalence links. All arcs are a form of link, but "link" has a lot of Web semantics, whereas "arc" is pretty much just a standard graph concept.
What do you think?
=Drummond
On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 7:48 AM, Markus Sabadello <> wrote:
I would say "arc" and more specifically "relational arc" are low level terms in the graph model. We can always use these terms. An "equivalence link" is a relational arc that expresses equivalence. I don't think we're using just the term "link" by itself.
Markus
On Friday, May 3, 2013, Joseph Boyle <> wrote:
> When should we say "link" vs. saying "arc" or "relational arc"?
>
> https://wiki.oasis-open.org/xdi/EquivalenceLinks?highlight=%28%5CbCategoryProposal%5Cb%29
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
>
>
--
Project Danube: http://projectdanube.org
Personal Data Ecosystem Consortium: http://personaldataecosystem.org/
