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

Re: schemarama 2

From: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2005 10:45:36 +0100
Message-ID: <1f2ed5cd0511020145p3190495cs4442fac1f1970747@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Miles, AJ (Alistair)" <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
Cc: semantic-web@w3.org

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.

[1] http://atomowl.org/
[2] http://dannyayers.com/archives/2005/10/18/atomowl-ontology-testing/




--

http://dannyayers.com
Received on Wednesday, 2 November 2005 09:45:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:40:57 UTC