On 22 Aug 2007, at 16:31, Danny Ayers wrote:
> [cc'ing public-grddl-comme
...@w3.org]
> Hi,
> The GRDDL Working Group [1] is looking for an XSLT transformation
> which will convert Atom format to RDF/XML. It's hoped that if a
> suitable one is found/written, the Atom WG will be willing for it to
> be associated with the Atom namespace document, enabling GRDDL-aware
> agents to automatically interpret Atom data as RDF. Please note that
> this hasn't yet been raised with atompub, it was felt better to have
> the XSLT available first (along with anything else that might improve
> the case, like tests).
> The current intention is for the XSLT file to be hosted on a W3C
> server, available under the W3C license [2].
> The GRDDL WG would very much appreciate your opinions on this
> matter, e.g.
> * What criteria do you believe the XSLT should fulfil?
> * Are any of these existing versions suitable, or do we need a new
> one?
> * Do you have any suggestions for tests etc?
> (Dave, I don't know if you've done an XSLT, but your work on Atom &
> RSS 1.0 around Raptor suggests your opinion would be valuable).
> Henry, I believe your current version [3] requires XSLT 2.0 - for
> GRDDL purposes this limits its applicability.
https://sommer.dev.java.net/atom/
There is an old xslt1.0 translation, but I did not develop it
further, because
I found it a lot easier to work with XQuery. The XQuery is then
translated to
XSLT2.0
> David, I couldn't find
> your latest version...[4] was nearest. So Masahide, yours [5]
> currently looks most promising. It would be helpful if everyone could
> confirm their licensing situation.
It is a BSD licence pretty much. But it can be changed if needed.
> An open question is the target vocabularies to which the XSLT should
> translate. (If I remember correctly, Henry's is a new Atom-specific
> vocab, David's mostly RSS 1.0 based, Masahide's RSS 1.0 augmented with
> Atom-specific terms).
as possible,
so as to work well with atom xml people's intuitions. There are
perhaps a few
more things to iron out... I would be happy to finish things off
formally and give
it a trusted name space. In any case it is BSD so it can be taken...
One piece that is still missing are some vocabulary enhancements from
the Atom Publishing
Protocol.
A quick look at Masahide's ontology, and I would guess that he will
have a problem with
atom feeds with multiple entries with the same id. Since I don't
think those map well to
RSS...
> Are the differences between Atom & RSS 1.0 such that some/all of the
> later would be too much of a compromise? Or are some/all of the terms
> near enough that the value of term reuse more than compensates for
> minor differences?
I wrote something on this a long time ago. A good place to start the
discussion perhaps.
http://groups.google.com/group/atom-owl/browse_thread/thread/
0d3ef4b14956f1a0
or
http://tinyurl.com/2yva55
One thing that could be added to AtomOwl would be a mapping of
relations to well known ontologies such as Dublin Core.
|
