On 18 Jan 2005, at 01:26, Danny Ayers wrote:
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).
Yes. It all depends of course on how the geo ontology has defined its
predicates. My point was to show a little how this gives a framework for
extension writers to think about their extensions. It constrains extension
writers the way logic constrains us in what we say, and that has never stopped
people from speaking gibberish.
It would probably help to work with a concrete example. That would show what
effect each decision had, and give us a good way to discuss whether that was
what the author intended. Perhaps we could start a thread taking a reasonable
extension idea, and use that to discuss how they would be best off writing their extension in Atom+OWL.
Henry
