W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > November 2005

Re: schemarama 2

From: Richard Newman <r.newman@reading.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2005 13:43:48 +0000
Message-Id: <66EE8BFB-E17C-4D98-8E27-859062B0EA0F@reading.ac.uk>
Cc: Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
To: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>

Danny,
   I was going to reimplement schemarama using twinql's matchers a  
month or two ago, and got sidetracked.

   If you can give me a graph pattern that an Atom/OWL node has to  
match (e.g., an entry has to have a title, an author who is a person,  
etc.), then twinql can compile that into a function that says 'yes'  
or 'no'. This graph pattern is a SPARQL SELECT query, basically.

   Sound useful?

-R

On 2 Nov 2005, at 09:45, Danny Ayers wrote:

>
> On 11/1/05, Miles, AJ (Alistair) <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>
>> http://isegserv.itd.rl.ac.uk/schemarama/
>>
>
> Wonderful.
>
> I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on how suitable this
> approach might be with Atom/OWL [1]. This is basically the Atom
> syndication modelled in RDF/OWL (work in progress, expect a
> request-for-feedback post to list sometime soon). There is already a
> lot of scope with Atom for validation at the syntax level, but I've
> been playing a little with validation at the model level using OWL
> constraints (some notes at [2]). I anticipate this will be pretty
> limited compared to the syntax stuff, but thought it could be useful
> for ensuring some level of sanity for Atom data when in the RDF/OWL
> world. (A particular variety of app I envisage is an Atom Store built
> on a triplestore, so it would have sources/sinks of Atom
> format/protocol). If I understand correctly, the Schemarama approach
> could take this even further towards the constraints given in the Atom
> spec. Does that make sense?
>
> Cheers,
> Danny.
Received on Wednesday, 2 November 2005 13:43:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 07:41:48 UTC