Brian Smith a écrit :
Sylvain Hellegouarch wrote:
If you're willing to create your own extension, why not
simply use RDF (or one of its relatives) as foreign content?
What is the added value of an extension in such case?
Please give an example of what you mean? For somebody that doesn't use RDF
tools, doing anything with RDF doesn't seem simple at all.
<entry xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom'>
...
<extension xmlns='http://xmlns.example.org'/>
</entry>
Since this is a simple extension element (by syntax), it must be metadata
about the entry (by definition). Any Atom+RDF tool should be able to create
RDF triples out of that without issues.
- Brian
Ian seems to use atom:category as a simple ontology format (which I
personally favor too). Creating an extension probably means either
re-using an existing format that is appropriate for OWL or define your
own. Now I don't immediatly understand why an extension would be better
than straight RDF (or a relative). In other word, why don't you think
embedding RDF as foreign content is worse than an extension in this
particular context?
- Sylvain
