On 17 Jan 2005, at 18:16, Dan Brickley wrote:
[snip]
I fear [2] is unfortunately named. Atom is RDF-like in some ways,
but until the Atom spec says "Atom is RDF", Atom isn't RDF. A surface
similarity to RDF's XML encoding, or even to RDF's graph data model,
isn't by itself enough to declare that Atom "is" RDF. For example, there
have been threads here about defaulting, about data being implied if
missing, and other things that have no clear RDF equivalent. The name
"Atom is RDF" goes somewhat against the decision record of this group,
which has been pretty clear in its non-RDFness. Wiki style tends towards
the consensual, so I suggest renaming it to AtomRDF or similar.
Yes, very good point. I have created a new Page called AtomRDF [3], whose aim
is to track what would be needed for an Atom document to be an RDF document.
It is only if we are clear about these that it will be possible to come to
a reasoned decision on the value of perhaps bridging the gap. The gap is I
think a lot smaller than most people think (which is what I was trying to
emphasize with the AtomIsRDF name) But you are right, there still
is one.
Even as an RDF enthusiast, I find the name problematic. So I'm concerned
that "Atom is RDF" will annoy people needlessly, which would be a shame
since the work you've been doing on an RDF/OWL view of the Atom format
is both interesting and valuable.
Dan
Henry Story
[1] http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/AtomOWL [2] http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/AtomIsRDF
[3] http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/AtomIsRDF
