James M Snell wrote: > Bill de hÓra wrote: > >>> 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. >> >> >> > Oh absolutely, I'm not trying to conflate 'em. I want to find a > solution to the first case ("this entry is talking about some subject > area") that preferably does not involve invention or abuse of existing > formats/tags. I'm more than aware that RDF does this already but I not > sure how that fact helps us in Atom (which is not RDF).
[RDF and TM were exemplary; cc'd to Henry/Danny] Ah ok; I had read the proposal initially as subject classification (dc:subject had me thinking that way). If you're looking for a way to say this is entry is saying stuff about something over there, then dc:subject and atom:category aren't a good fit as they're more or less pointing the wrong way. rdf:about is the closest analog in semweb land (plus it takes urls), but it's the wrong thing here (I'll get to this). You could do any of the following: - define an atom:about tag or attribute that takes a URL. - use a @rel=about on a link tag You can't use an rdf:about on the atom:entry element for this and that's to do with entry metadata associations. What we want to say is that the entry to talking about something else. With rdf:about the entry *metadata* will become bound to the something else and not the entry (which is messed up). The only sensible way I see is to work in terms of the entry URI and the URI you're pointing at: 'entryURI isabout someOtherURI' and define a new term for this purpose. Anyone that wants to model this formally has enough information in the entry markup to consistently generate the correct RDF statements out of band. [I'm not suggesting RDF stuff for this - it's just very useful for teasing out issues] cheers Bill
