atom-owl Google Group

atomix

henry.st...@bblfish.net (Story Henry) — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 22:47:22 UT

I noticed some movement on the esw atomowl wiki page,
[link]
and I noted that Toby Inkster is working on ontologies for the atom
extensions. Good idea.
[link]
Henry
Home page: [link]

Re: Can we get a stable URI (for atom-owl) already?!

henry.st...@bblfish.net (Story Henry) — Thu, 27 Nov 2008 13:32:41 UT

Case in point: [link] no longer points to anything, even
though for a long time I think it did point to a whole bunch of atom
related
stuff. So a purl is not much of a guarantee of anything.
Still I wonder what Sam would think about having that purl be the URL
for the atom-owl namespace ?

Re: Can we get a stable URI already?!

m...@tobyinkster.co.uk (Toby Inkster) — Thu, 27 Nov 2008 12:07:12 UT

Sam Ruby
-Toby

Re: Can we get a stable URI already?!

henry.st...@bblfish.net (Story Henry) — Thu, 27 Nov 2008 12:00:13 UT

There was a discussion on this on #swig. The chat logs are here:
[link]
My summary at this time:
Purl choice:
- purl does not guarantee that the name will always refer to the
same ontology. The owner of the purl could die, change his mind, sell

Can we get a stable URI already?!

m...@tobyinkster.co.uk (tobyink) — Thu, 27 Nov 2008 11:07:46 UT

I would suggest something like:

[link]

Because Danny Ayers already controls <[link]>.

-Toby

Re: Atom Triples Internet Draft

henry.st...@bblfish.net (Story Henry) — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 08:52:33 UT

I like the RDFa idea a lot. Btw, there would be a question as to the
namespace of the rdfa attributes if it
were to work with atom.
Though that makes sense in a way, my feeling is that an atom:Entry is
an information object,
and so is owl:disjointWith a foaf:Person . I would argue this by
looking at the main use case for atom: the Atom Protocol. Atom entries

Re: Atom Triples Internet Draft

henry.st...@bblfish.net (Story Henry) — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 12:35:05 UT

You have to distinguish 3 things, then entry, the id relationship and
the object of the id relationship, namely the URI.
<entry>
<id>[link]</id>
...
</entry>
which in N3 can be translated as:
[] a :Entry;
:id "[link]"^^xsd:anyURI .

Re: Atom Triples Internet Draft

henry.st...@bblfish.net (Story Henry) — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 20:13:24 UT

Well one named graph per content would be more precise. Since there is
one content per entry, that also comes down to one per entry of
course. But that is exactly what the N3 [1] example I gave and which I
have reproduced below says.
-----------------
@prefix : <[link]>

Re: Atom Triples Internet Draft

henry.st...@bblfish.net (Story Henry) — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 16:10:30 UT

Hi Phil,
thanks for the pointer to the POWDER spec. I have not used POWDER yet,
so I can't comment on that side of things. I do think it provides a
very good example to the atom working group, in that it provides the
following:
1. an RDF vocabulary and spec
2. an simple to use XML format

Re: Atom Triples Internet Draft

henry.st...@bblfish.net (Story Henry) — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 14:47:43 UT

Thanks Dave for this proposal to link atom and rdf.
A few remarks:
1. one can already embed rdf in atom
------------------------------ ------
Just as a matter of interest for those who do not know the atom
format, one can already embed rdf in atom quite simply.
<entry>
<title>syndeocms Project</title>

Re: rdf in atom

henry.st...@bblfish.net (Story Henry) — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 11:22:31 UT

If you are looking for a lack of ambiguity, then why not endorse the
process of creating an official semantics for atom, such as atom-owl ?
The advantage of this is that it would bring all the work from the
Semantic Web side to bear on atom. A GRDDL transform would then create
a standard, and unambiguous mapping from atom to RDF. This would allow

Re: rdf in atom

henry.st...@bblfish.net (Story Henry) — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 07:58:44 UT

Nice work. I welcome the effort to find a mapping from atom to rdf.
There are two problems though:
(1) Rather than having an IETF document explain how to make explicit
a mapping of every instance of the atom format to rdf it would be
better to create an ontology for atom and specify an official GRDDL

xml:base resoltution in XSLT

djpow...@djpowell.net (David Powell) — Sun, 20 Jan 2008 17:35:23 UT

Hi,
Just a quick status update...
I've just been working on an XSLT issue. I already had an xml:base
resolver for Atom/RDF implemented in XSLT 1.0, but it didn't quite
work with GRDDL because it expected you to pass in a baseURI parameter
of the source document, which GRDDL won't do. I've just made some

Re: Importing AtomOwl in Protege

atapia...@dit.upm.es (Antonio Tapiador del Dujo) — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 15:35:42 UT

FYI: This was the answer to problems importing AtomOwl in Protege:
Antonio,
Protege cannot handle all OWL-Full ontologies. Certain things, such as
an entity being a class and a property at the same time, are not supported.
If you validate the two ontologies with the OWL Validator [1], you will
see that they are OWL Full and you will get many warnings, such as

Getting Going Again

henry.st...@gmail.com (Henry Story) — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 16:21:01 UT

For our 59 readers, just a quick update.
It looks like we are going to try to finish this spec now. The GRDDL
W3C working group has given us a kick in the backside, saying they
would like to have this to work with their spec.
So once more into the breach!
Aaargghhhhhhh!
Henry
Home page: [link]