An Atom document is very close to being an RDF document. This page aims to track the gap between the formats.
The intent is to see what would be required for an Atom document to be an RDF document consisting of elements taken from the OWL ontology such as AtomOWL . There is no interest in making the inverse true: namely that a graph consisting of OWL statements be mappable into any RDF document, and that that document be an Atom document.
This is a first outline of some of the differences.
If the gap between Atom and RDF is cheap enough to close, then specifying a solid extension mechanism will be very simply a requirement than any extensions to Atom also be RDF documents. This together with the Atom ontology, will help extension writers frame their work much more easily, and Atom consumers parse extensions in a generic way.
Atom attributes are not in the atom namespace. It is deprecated in rdf for this to be the case.
Additions to the spec, stating that the atom syntax contains a hidden rdf:parseType="Resource" at various locations
ie the equivalent of adding to the DTD
<!ATTLIST atom:head rdf:parseType CDATA #FIXED "Resource">
changing the generator construct from having the form
<atom:generator uri="https://bloged.dev.java.net/" version="0.5">BlogEd</atom:generator>
atom:title is defined in 2 places with incompatible definitions
work on the OWL side needs to be done on understanding the TEXT construct
There will be many different ways to close the gap. The onus will always be on there being the least amount of work on the Atom spec side.
Atom Attributes: [PaceAttributesNamespace]
This is a space to keep track of proposed solutions that did not quite make it. It helps to have such a space as it can help people coming in to the discussion finding their way, or noticing some solution that may have been missed.
- All attributes are to be prefixed. problem: unecessarily strong requirement.
very minimal on the Atom format.
very high on the ability to extend Atom intelligently