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 20:39:11 -0700
Message-ID: <0E36FD96D96FCA4AA8E8F2D199320E52032CBA36@RED-MSG-43.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Jon Hanna" <jon@hackcraft.net>, "Danny Ayers" <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
Cc: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>, <atom-syntax@imc.org>, "Dare Obasanjo" <kpako@yahoo.com>

> happening (i.e. give a discription of what possible 
> representations could be obtained for a given resource, and 
> in what cases) RDF would be the natural source.

Yeah, I actually meant to refer to the "Accepts" header, which is one of
many examples of useful metadata passed in HTTP headers.  HTTP has a
metadata and extensibility story and doesn't use RDF -- and that is not
worth losing sleep over.

> Taking RDF out of RSS just doesn't compare.

Danny was talking about Atom, and specifically about the use cases of
using Atom as a transport for routing and publishing RDF.  Atom doesn't
have any RDF to "take out".  And it's perfectly feasible to route and
publish RDF using Atom or RSS 2.0 without having to modify them to be
based on RDF.  We already have one syndication format based on RDF, and
one based on XML.  What could we possibly gain by starting a holy war
about whether the third should be switched from XML to RDF?  (I would
point out that a mapping between RDF and XML in the case of Atom is
trivial, BTW)
Received on Tuesday, 12 October 2004 03:39:15 GMT

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