[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: rdf in atom
On 01/07/2008, at 5:58 PM, Story Henry wrote:
Nice work. I welcome the effort to find a mapping from atom to rdf.
There are two problems though:
(1) Rather than having an IETF document explain how to make explicit
a mapping of every instance of the atom format to rdf it would be
better to create an ontology for atom and specify an official GRDDL
transform for it.
We weren't looking for a full mapping of Atom to an ontology, but
rather a lightweight way to move statements around in Atom.
IMO, the problem with trying to define or use an Atom ontology has
always been that most authors and extension writers don't have RDF in
mind; while extracting semantics from the world around you is
interesting, there also needs to be a way to shove them around with
demonstrable intent, so that there isn't any ambiguity about what's
happening.
WRT using GRDDL or other out-of-band mechanisms -- the overhead of
processing GRDDL is IMO not acceptable in some cases, and furthermore,
it's again not explicit/self-describing.
(2) I think the semantics of atom are wrong in the draft. It would
have helped somewhat to consult on the work of the atom-owl [1]
group before putting this spec together.
The key problem is the value of the subject:
[[
<atom:entry>
<atom:id>http://example.com/a</atom:id>
<atom:title>Test</atom:title>
</atom:entry>
and the map above as a child of at:entrymap, the following triple
would be implied;
<http://example.com/a> <http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/title>
"Test" .
]]
By making the value of the subject be the resource identified by the
id, you are going against what at least two
independently built ontologies for atom consider to be the value of
the subject of the entry.
That is only the default; see the subject attribute.
[...]
It cannot be therefore that you have correctly captured the
semantics of the atom format.
That is not a goal for this effort.
Cheers,
--
Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/