On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 23:38:50 +0100, Henry Story <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Take for example the following extension proposed recently > > <entry> > <id>tag://sometag</id> > <geo:x>10.1</geo:x> > <geo:y>57.3</geo:y> > ... > </entry> > > this implies the following rdf graph > > _e -entry-> _E > |-id--><tag://sometag> > |-geo:x->"10.1" > |-geo:y->"57.3" > > which presumably would mean that _E had to be both > an Entry and a geographical location, ...or an entry *with* a geographic location (or something completely different). which is a very > unintuitive concept, and very likely *not* what the > extension author intended. It would for example meant > that this object would be a different object if it had > a different id. > > What he probably intended was either > > - That the author was at some particular location, in which case he > should > probably have added attributes to the author object, through some foaf > ontology predicate. > > - Or that some event the Entry is about was at some particular > location. In which > case this should have gone into the <content> </content> space by using > an event > ontology. Maybe, but there's always the trade-off between accuracy of modelling and difficulty of handling the stuff. There's really nothing to stop the resource identified in <id> being a geological event with a geographic location as well as something with a representation in the content of an entry in an Atom feed. The indirection can be reduced with the data expressing what the entry is, rather than what it is about. This example probably works better than most in human terms, as the entry could be an entry in an event log, though you could end up with the author of the feed entry being the creator of the earthquake... Cheers, Danny. -- http://dannyayers.com