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 19:43:49 -0700
Message-ID: <0E36FD96D96FCA4AA8E8F2D199320E52032CBA01@RED-MSG-43.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Dare Obasanjo" <kpako@yahoo.com>, "Danny Ayers" <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
Cc: <rdfweb-dev@vapours.rdfweb.org>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>, <semanticweb@yahoogroups.com>, <rss-dev@yahoogroups.com>, <atom-syntax@imc.org>

> > Speaking philosophically, I'm starting to wonder if the 
> > mightn't simply have entered into a pact with some horned deity or 

> Seriously, is such a comment really warranted? 

I assumed this was just a tongue-in-cheek nod to the sudden success of
podcasting, "must be a faustian bargain, because it sure couldn't have
been a well-planned extensibility philosophy!"

In any case, I wanted to make it clear that I wasn't slamming RDF.  I
was simply disagreeing with Danny's characterization of a "polarized"
choice between RDF and XML in Atom/RSS.  I'm the biggest cheerleader for
triples data model and semweb, but I wouldn't suggest that we rewrite
HTTP to use RDF for extensibility.  There are certainly some theoretical
benefits we could get, but it wouldn't be worth the fight, and it would
make adoption hared.  Therefore, I would disagree with anyone who wants
to start a battle over "RDF vs. conneg in HTTP".  It's a pointless
battle.  I think that retrofitting RDF into RSS is exactly the same --
lots of extra complexity and drama for no obvious benefit, and you can
use RDF in RSS already without having to mess with the transport.
Received on Tuesday, 12 October 2004 02:44:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:52:10 GMT