[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Proposed addition to Charter

To: Norman Walsh <ndw@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Proposed addition to Charter
From: Danny Ayers <danny666@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 15:03:43 +0100
Cc: Dave Pawson <davep@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Atom-Syntax <atom-syntax@xxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <>
List-archive: <http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/>
List-id: <atom-syntax.imc.org>
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:atom-syntax-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
Reply-to: danny666@xxxxxxxxxxx
Sender: owner-atom-syntax@xxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.5 (Windows/20040207)

Norman Walsh wrote:

/ Danny Ayers <danny666@xxxxxxxxxxx> was heard to say:
[...]
| Not really, quite a lot of people went silent on this list when
| RDF/XML ceased to be an option. That was among the 'visible iceberg'
| of this list - projected onto the world at large a lot of people that
| might be interested in working with Atom alongside RDF systems simply
| won't bother, maybe opting for RSS 1.0 instead. I know of quite a few
| people who are wanting to work with Atom in RDF systems right now. RDF
| and related technologies have gained a lot more momentum in the past
| year or so, the revised specs going to W3C Recommendation being a big
| push. Atom can benefit from that momentum pretty easily, by being
| RDF-friendly.

But it isn't unfriendly. I could easily generate an RDF representation
of an Atom feed. And the whole GRDL direction seems to favor
generating RDF from existing formats.

Sure, you can generate an RDF representation of an Atom feed, but would have the same semantics as the RDF representation I generated of the same feed? (I agree Atom is directly in the sights of a GRDDL approach, this should be positive all around).

I suppose there are two things I'm trying to do with this proposal - one is to encourage standardisation of the RDF interpretation, the other to make Atom as interesting as possible to people working with RDF systems. The former needs some level of agreement on a schema/ontology, and the latter would be helped by such a schema, and a published XSLT stylesheet for the transformation would be very convenient. If these things were normative, not only would the standardisation be formalised, but it would be clearly appear on the radar of visiting RDF folks.

I can't see much of a downside - Tim suggests that it might slow down the whole effort, but I really don't think any significant delays would be associated with this, it can happen in a separate processing thread. There is plenty of expertise available here and nearby, and less potential for disagreement given that the schema would be derived directly from the spec prose.

Cheers,
Danny.

--
----
Raw
http://dannyayers.com

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Proposed addition to Charter
  - From: Sam Ruby

References:
- Proposed addition to Charter
  - From: Danny Ayers
- Re: Proposed addition to Charter
  - From: Tim Bray
- Re: Proposed addition to Charter
  - From: Danny Ayers
- Re: Proposed addition to Charter
  - From: Dave Pawson
- Re: Proposed addition to Charter
  - From: Danny Ayers
- Re: Proposed addition to Charter
  - From: Norman Walsh

Prev by Date: Re: Proposed addition to Charter
Next by Date: Re: Proposed addition to Charter
Previous by thread: Re: Proposed addition to Charter
Next by thread: Re: Proposed addition to Charter
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread