> From: Dan Brickley [mailto:danbri@w3.org] > > FWIW I've worked on RSS 1.0, DC, ABC as well as tracking the > INDECS, CRM etc work. There's no conflict: RDF was designed > so that all such vocabs could be deployed within the same > overarching framework. And RSS 1.0 was designed so that wide > range of descriptive vocabulaies could be deployed within RSS > feeds. Oftentimes, Dublin Core is plenty complex enough. > Sometimes, a more explicitly modelled representation is worth > the extra effort it imposes on consumers and producers of the feeds. Ok Dan, I assume by plenty complex, you mean adequate, not complicated. For example something I've come across: using DC/RSS to feed SMS notifications. I'm buggered if I can see where the complexity is in the data or what possible objection anyone could have to having DC in RSS; RDF in the large I can understand. Bill de hÓra -- Propylon www.propylon.comReceived on Friday, 4 October 2002 08:39:39 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:56 GMT