RE: Semantics

["Bob Wyman" <bob@xxxxxxxx>]

Henry Story wrote in:
http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg04494.html
> Now an Entry in this second model could never 
> be more than one Feed, and this may be 
> considered a limitation.
	It is certainly a limitation; however, this limitation is one that I
believe there is consensus to accept. If the limitation didn't exist, we
would be opening up the "Pandora's Box" of supporting a "Feed-of-Feeds."
Doing so is something that folk clearly don't seem to want to support.
	The most common case where a "Feed-of-Feeds" might be considered
useful is in the construction of "synthetic-feeds". I.e. Feeds that are
composed of entries which have been extracted from other feeds. I recently
proposed a new element of Entry, atom:source-feed, which would permit the
insertion of feed-level metadata into an entry so that even if an entry is
extracted from its source feed and inserted into a new feed, the meta-data
relating to the source-feed remains with the entry.
	Your model could be adjusted to incorporate support for
atom:source-feed by creating a class "meta-data" which would contain that
meta-data common to atom:feed, atom:entry, and atom:source-feed. 
	Note: Another proposal that I've created a PACE for suggests that
atom:copyright be supported in Entries since they sometimes have copyrights
(or other rights) which are distinct from those of the Feed as a collection.
Also, I believe you'll find that entries can have xml:lang tags that are
different from those of the enclosing feed. Thus, in your model,
atom:copyright and xml:lang should be moved to Entry rather than being
specific to Feed.
	Finally, please note that your model seems to have confused the
various dates that are currently defined for Atom feeds. Both atom:feed and
atom:entry support an atom:modified element, however, only atom:entry
supports atom:created and atom:issued elements. The model could, of course,
be simplified by supporting all three dates in both atom:feed and
atom:entry.

		bob wyman