Henry Story wrote:
this implies the following rdf graph
_e -entry-> _E |-id--><tag://sometag> |-geo:x->"10.1" |-geo:y->"57.3"
[On a technical point, I would disagree the graph is implied. As I said earlier, this kind of assumption concerns me.]
If you look at the AtomOWL spec, you will see that among other things it is simply a specification of what types of objects a relation can take as subject and as Object.
This is what I'm getting from the proposal - if range and domain for extensions are determined, a semantically 'consistent' (I won't say 'meaningful') extensibility framework for applying them to Atom structures can be established. So since we have evaluation rules above the level of data structures, we can determine if any extra metadata satisfies the constraints.
Two things come to mind if that is a fair summary.
First, I don't see how it can be done generally without RDF backed ontological modeling to begin with - which would be AtomIsRDF. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think for this to work I would need to know what the essence of Atom domain constructs are before I can determine whether a new property can be correctly be applied to one.
Second, I've said before, my position is that Atom doesn't require extensibility. Tim for one, has taken umbrage with my use of the word 'extensible', but what you're proposing isn't far away from what I would mean by it - extensions and their relationships are processed through an evaluator. I just happen to think we don't need to spec this yet*.
So, I'm not -1 on this, but I do think it's out of scope.
cheers Bill
* I would include trying to make explicit whatever the child_of() evaluation rules might be for XML containership here.
