On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 5:54 PM, Peter Keane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > In our project, similarly to Connections, we use: > > <category term="public" scheme="http://.../category/visibility"/> > > I'd be v. interested to know what other folks do, esp. if there is an > opportunity for standardization. In fact, I could see real utility in > some semi-formal way to register category schemes and terms. As has been > noted [1][2], atom:category has the potential to be quite a powerful > exension mechanism, getting us a "description framework" without having > to use RDF (not that there's anything wrong w/ RDF ;-)).
>From an outsider, just watching this list from time to time: Why not use RDF? Isn't RDF more general? Could these categories be used anywhere outside of Atom? I'm not very familiar with the atom:category(ies) so I ask: can atom:categories be referred to / used in a meaningful way with RDF? E.g. can you either use URIs e.g. "http://.../flags#private"; or "http://.../flags/private"; to refer to them? Or could one create a general approach for using GRDDL ( http://research.talis.com/2006/grddl-wg/primer ) ? If you cannot, then I think this approach will be a dead end in a few years, agree? If there is one thing I think Atom is missing is a standardized way to combine it with RDF. Why not try to use RDF when you can, not try to avoid it? Thanks, - Erling > > --peter keane > > [1]http://torrez.us/archives/2006/05/25/447/ > [2]http://www.majordojo.com/2006/05/overloading-atomcategory.php#c12851 > > > On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 08:01:38AM -0700, James M Snell wrote: >> >> In Connections, we've adopted a category based "flags" mechanisms, e.g. >> >> <category scheme="http://.../flags"; term="private" /> >> >> It is essentially a boolean flag. If the term "private" is included in the >> entry, the entry is private, otherwise it's not. The "flags" scheme >> contains a number of other types of flags relevant to the entry. So far, >> this has worked reasonably well for us. >> >> - James >> >> Bill de hOra wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> are there any format or category extensions for stating view privacy or >>> moderation levels on content or feeds? ) >>> >>> Bill >>> >>> > > -- Med vennlig hilsen Erling Wegger Linde
