- From: Richard Newman <r.newman@reading.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2005 13:43:48 +0000
- To: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
- Cc: Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
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