pkeane wrote:
> [snip]
>
> But I suspect "category" might provide a place for some of the other
> attributes while staying within the Atom namespace. Does anyone
+1, this looks like a great use of atom:category
> have any thoughts on how we determine the "categoriness" of an
> attribute algoritmically? Collection owners can specify occurrence
> cardinality (0:1,0:m,1:m,1:1) for attributes, but not uniqueness
> constraints (obviously, a unique attribute such as 'serial number'
> is NOT category-like). "Tags" work nicely as categories as do any
> attributes that have a predefined scope of values (collection owners
> can, in fact, define the set of possible values for an attribute).
>
Any bit of information that can be used to organize the entry into some
form of taxonomy is suitable for atom:category.
> In addition to items in collections, I would like to have Atom feeds
> that describe the attributes themselves. Our "attributes" database table
> includes columns with information about the attribute (sort order,
> whether it is included in basic search, whether it is public or private,
> etc.) and I have shoehorned these into Atom categories as illustrated by
> this snippet of an Atom feed:
>
> <entry>
> ....
> <id>http://example.com/american_politics_collection/att/scratch_pad</id>
> <title>scratch_pad</title>
> <category term="textbox"
> scheme="http://example.com/categories/attribute/html-input-type/";
> label="HTML input:textbox"/>
> <category term="14"
> scheme="http://example.com/categories/attribute/sort-order/";
> label="sort:14"/>
> <category term="on_list_display"
> scheme="http://example.com/categories/attribute/on-list-display/";
> label="on list display"/>
> <category term="in_basic_search"
> scheme="http://example.com/categories/attribute/in-basic-search/";
> label="in basic search"/>
> <category
> scheme="http://example.com/categories/attribute/public-private/";
> term="public" label="public"/>
> ...
> </entry>
>
> Does anyone have any thoughts on the appropriateness of this use for
> Atom categories?
>
This looks fine to me.
- James
> many thanks-
> Peter Keane
> daseproject.org
>
>
