James M Snell wrote: > > >> Err, are you forgetting atom:category? Doesn’t that satisfy all >> your wants *and* more? It has a URI, a term and a human-readable >> label. >> >> Regards, >> >> > I dunno, that's why I was asking ;-) > > atom:category works well for categorizing entries, but does it really > tell us what the entry is about?
This is the same as the dc v custom thing. Atom category imparts no less information on 'aboutness' that dc subject or some custom tag. > For instance, suppose that I want to > indicate that an entry is about http://www.ibm.com and file that in a > category called technology? The categorization of the entry is > different than the subject of the entry.. tho both are definitely related. There are two distinct forms of discourse going on here - This entry is talking about some subject area or entity or resource. It says something about something else. Being able to do this pretty much why RDF was invented. - This entry is classifiable under some subject area or topic or class. It has something has sense of belonging or association to something else. Being able to do this is pretty much why Topic Maps were invented. Please, please, please, do not conflate these. cheers Bill
