On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 14:38:17 -0500, Sam Ruby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> For starters, the current atom:generator element has optional "uri" and > "version" elements, not "atom:uri" and "atom:version" elements. > Unfortunately, these are quite different. Yurk, nice catch. I wonder if it might make sense (over on the RDF side of the transform/fence) to notionally define namespace-qualified terms as equivalent to the no-namespace ones in Atom syntax - that shouldn't impact anything on the Atom side, should it? > More siginificantly, the document does not address the largest issue, > which is content. Anything in particular in mind? I think there may be a very clean mapping of the content by simply taking the typing as used in Atom, defining each through XML Schema, then using URIs for each as the value for rdf:datatype in literals. It sounds complicated but in effect it should mean something like e.g. type="XHTML" being replaced by rdf:datatype="http://purl.org/atom/datatypes#XHTML";, the rest of the RDF/XML syntax being near-identical to Atom. Whether this is actually possible is another matter...depends on the XML Schema datatype business, and whether it's consistent with the best practices draft in [1] (XML Schema Datatypes in RDF and OWL) - I've not had chance to read yet.. The alternative would seem to be to add the type as simply another literal-valued property of the content. Easy-peasy in principal and practice, but less elegant and a step removed from Henry's AtomAsRDF. > I do believe that it would be possible, and perhaps quite useful, to > define an XSLT tranform from Atom/XML to RDF/XML. Yep. Has anyone got one more recent than 0.3? Cheers, Danny. [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/XSCH/xsch-sw-20041216/ -- http://dannyayers.com
