W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > October 2004

RE: Atom and RDF

From: Joshua Allen <joshuaa@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 12:26:08 -0700
Message-ID: <0E36FD96D96FCA4AA8E8F2D199320E52032CB422@RED-MSG-43.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Danny Ayers" <danny.ayers@gmail.com>, <rdfweb-dev@vapours.rdfweb.org>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>, <semanticweb@yahoogroups.com>
Cc: <rss-dev@yahoogroups.com>, <atom-syntax@imc.org>

> HTTP), so there's clearly some overlap with RDF efforts. RSS 
> 1.0 extensions must follow the constraints of RDF. So RDF is 

Are there actually any RSS 1.0 extensions in popular use?  I note that
RSS 2.0 approach made it very easy for podcasting to catch hold, and
this may be a consideration when evaluating an extensibility philosophy.

> reading) support both formats. Most syndication tools only 
> support enough of the RDF model to be able to extract the 
> syndication-domain data (there are notable exceptions, and of 

This is perhaps wishful.  Most syndication tools do not support RDF
model at all, and simply read the RSS 1.0 file as XML.  Most tools would
barf given any of a number of isomorphic RDF models which stray even
slightly from the expected XML syntax.

> course virtually all RDF tools can consume & process RSS 1.0 
> out of the box). Developers of syndication tools tend to have 

Again, I would temper this -- they can consume the RDF graph, but not as
RSS (unless you meant to say "virtually all RDF-based syndication

> Why does it matter? I think RDF potentially stands to gain 
> quite a lot from Atom, in the form of a relatively 
> lightweight but versatile and thoroughly spec'ed transport 
> (and editing protocol) which is likely to gain widespread 

How is this use case any different than using RSS (or Atom) as a
protocol for moving around audio streams, bittorrent pointers to TV
programs, and other payloads?  The fact that RSS can be useful with a
wide variety of payloads is evidence IMO that it defines a good
separation between the protocol and payload, and my suggestion would be
to treat RDF as an opaque payload exactly like any other.
Received on Monday, 11 October 2004 19:27:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:07:53 UTC