Attached is the closest I could get today in writing the Atom ontology.
There is an N3 and RDF version of the OWL Ontology. For a nice and
easily understood reading of the data you can have a look at these
files using Protégé [1]. Of course they can also be read with a simple
text or xml editor
I can't do everything simultaneously. Tomorrow I will give you a first
version of an OWL document that will map the current atom spec. Can you
give me the current namespace for the draft atom spec I am supposed to
be working to? This is so the atom OWL document can describe the
properties of th
At 12:06 AM +0100 1/9/05, Henry Story wrote:
The "internet draft" I want to propose is an OWL document. I can get
this out tomorrow. It will essentially say everything the current
Atom OWL spec says, but in machine readable form.
An OWL document is not an Internet Draft. If you cannot create an
On 9 Jan 2005, at 00:06, Henry Story wrote:
The "internet draft" I want to propose is an OWL document. I can get
this out tomorrow. It will essentially say everything the current Atom
OWL spec says,
Sorry it is past midnight here at I am typing a little fast.
I meant "It will essentially say e
The "internet draft" I want to propose is an OWL document. I can get
this out tomorrow. It will essentially say everything the current Atom
OWL spec says, but in machine readable form.
All that is required then is that the Atom IETF document this working
group is working on have some language d
At 10:54 PM +0100 1/8/05, Henry Story wrote:
The IETF document I mentioned is the one this mailing list is
working on developing.
Then you didn't understand Tim's message. He meant a *new* Internet
draft, not a change to the current draft (unless the change is a few
sentences). From your list of
The IETF document I mentioned is the one this mailing list is working
on developing. The four points I listed are starting points for a
couple of small additions to the Atom IETF document and their relation
to a to be written OWL Ontology. There are I am sure people more
familiar with the ins a
At 8:33 PM +0100 1/8/05, Henry Story wrote:
Here is one suggestion I was thinking of to move along, quickly and
seamlessly I hope.
All that seems fine, but your list is neither a Pace nor an Internet
draft, and is therefore not in line with what Tim and I asked for.
Given that you talk about an
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tim Bray
> Sent: Saturday, January 08, 2005 10:49 AM
> To: 'Atom WG'
> Subject: Closure on Extensibility & RDF
>
> [On behalf of Paul and myself:]
>
> The o
Here is one suggestion I was thinking of to move along, quickly and
seamlessly I hope.
1. Atom will have an associated machine readable OWL document that
defines each
of the objects and properties described in the Atom syntax spec,
with language
that mirrors that of the spec.
1.1 Th
[On behalf of Paul and myself:]
The opinion has been forcefully expressed that Atom should adopt an
extensibility framework based partly or wholly, directly or indirectly,
on RDF. This idea is not unreasonable on the face of it. Thus, the
time has now come to put this into a concrete proposal.
11 matches
Mail list logo
