Erling Wegger Linde a écrit :
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?
Unless I'm mistaken, they are URIs so yes I'd say a client that is built
with such purpose could make sense of those elements.
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?
No I don't. Could you explain?
I actually believe atom:category elements have the basic minimum that
someone may be looking for when adding a context to a resource.
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?
I don't understand what you mean by standardizing RDF with Atom. If
someone is interested in using RDF inside Atom can't they just do so
already? Or do you mean mapping the Atom model to the RDF data model?
Looking at the GRRDL Primer specification it looks like it's a
transformation mechanism of a source document to a RDF representation.
Is there any showstopper from the RDF community to already create such
specification for consuming Atom documents?
More fundamentally my *personal* issue here is that RDF has chosen a
top-down approach by saying "We needed a mechanism to enable meaningful
consuming of heterogeneous resources" so they defined RDF and gradually
offered simpler mechanisms to allow the profane to join the RDF world
(like GRRDL Primer). Atom on the other hand has followed a bottom-up
path and been about "Let's have the lowest entry barrier we can and
gradually add more complex mechanisms if they are needed". But because
the base format is well defined you can make an Atom document already
meaningful on its own.
- Sylvain
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
