W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > October 2002

RE: The Tragedy of RSS

From: Paskin, Norman (DOI-ELS) <n.paskin@doi.org>
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 11:27:24 +0100
Message-ID: <2EA918FE7CC6FB4BA0510D671ADB2AB402E0B57E@elsoxfs02604>
To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org

I don't think it follows that including DC in RSS is a win-win.  Doesn't
seem to be the case that because something is simple it is useful in every
case.  RDF is surely intended to be extensible and able to deal with
(automate) very complex problems of description by essentially simple tools
(knowledge graphs) - whereas Dublin Core is not based on an extensible
unified data model - it's essentially a simple, quick fix, for simple
metadata using optional elements, not designed for complex applications:
the original scope being "an easy-to-create and maintain descriptive format
to facilitate cross-domain resource discovery on the Web".   It breaks if
stretched to deal with complex metadata (description) problems: see  Keeping
Dublin Core Simple;  Cross-Domain Discovery or Resource Description? by Carl
Lagoze at http://www.dlib.org/dlib/january01/lagoze/01lagoze.html

If RDF is going to be useful in dealing with real world problems then it
will be necessary to deal with complex descriptions that require more
expressive data models able to differentiate between agents, documents,
contexts, events, and the like. Rather than DC, ontology-based metadata
systems that are based on structured data models:  to name a few,  MPEG-21's
RDD; SMPTE; CIDOC's CRM;  the library world FRBR, etc; and tools which
provide a means of mapping these like indecs, the ABC model etc. 
Norman Paskin

-----Original Message-----
From: Bill de hÓra [mailto:dehora@eircom.net]
Sent: 04 October 2002 10:55
To: MDaconta@aol.com; www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Subject: RE: The Tragedy of RSS


It is obvious there is literally a competition over the syndication 
problem domain between RDF and an application of XML Schema.
Not at all. There's a competition over a brand name that no-one seems to
own but a few people seem to want. 

Besides the tragic tug of war over who's solution is "better" - I 
believe the real tragedy is RDF losing a battle that it should not
have fought.  I believe that Dave Winer, wielding the "simplicity
sledgehammer", will defeat RDF as a more widely adopted 
solution to simple syndication.  

Dave Winer's forked RSS twice by looks of things. He has a good point
about simplicity. On the other hand from a technical viewpoint, it's not
RDF that matters here, it's actually Dublin Core. having RSS not use DC
is probably shortsighted. Preserving simplicity versus including Dublin
Core is a different argument altogether. because the thing is, Dublin
Core is simple. If RSS 2.0 could find a way to leave Dublin Core in
place, that's a win-win.

Bill de hÓra 
Received on Friday, 4 October 2002 06:28:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:07:42 UTC