W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-grddl-comments@w3.org > July to September 2007


From: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 15:31:05 +0100
Message-ID: <1f2ed5cd0708220731y52df7ff1qc0e01a4dc11ef6c1@mail.gmail.com>
To: webmaster@kanzaki.cc, "Story Henry" <henry.story@bblfish.net>, djpowell@djpowell.net, "Dave Beckett" <dave@dajobe.org>
Cc: public-grddl-comments@w3.org

[cc'ing public-grddl-comments@w3.org]


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. 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.

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).

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?


[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/grddl/
[2] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2002/copyright-software-20021231
[3] http://bblfish.net/work/atom-owl/2006-06-06/AtomOwl.html
[4] http://groups.google.com/group/atom-owl/browse_thread/thread/531cc3843cb9b613/6eca2a25902a02c9?lnk=gst&q=xslt&rnum=3#6eca2a25902a02c9
[5] http://www.kanzaki.com/works/2005/misc/0726atom.html


Received on Wednesday, 22 August 2007 14:31:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:55:02 UTC