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

Re: Atom and RDF

From: Robert Sayre <mint@franklinmint.fm>
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 10:29:11 -0400
Message-ID: <416BEA37.7020809@franklinmint.fm>
To: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
CC: Joshua Allen <joshuaa@microsoft.com>, Jon Hanna <jon@hackcraft.net>, www-rdf-interest@w3.org, atom-syntax@imc.org, Dare Obasanjo <kpako@yahoo.com>

Danny Ayers wrote:

>
> Ok, could be wrong but I don't think Atom yet has a suitable means of
> doing the equivalent of <enclosure>. 

We call it content @src. MarkN and I are working on incorporating the 
accepted PaceContentRedux3. That's your "blob" property, remember?

> 
> As has been pointed out, each entry is given a URI, which means RDF
> can talk about them. But then that raises the spectre of one (Atom)
> feed for content, one (RSS/RDF) for metadata.Or perhaps following the
> idea of RDF-as-payload we could have alternating content/metadata
> (wierd, but there might be something in it...).

It should raise the spectre of independent resources. HTTP works better 
that way.

I'm not "against" RDF at all, and I think it has a good extensibility 
story. But we don't really need RDF/XML in core. The Atom project, like 
some versions of RSS, has done a little activity-based planning and 
found that people like to make lists.[0]

Adaptations of Greenspun's Tenth Rule really aren't appropriate here.

Atom does not fear the other. Can we stop the crossposting now?

Robert Sayre

[0] (search for "activity-based planning")
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/printerFriendly/uibook/chapters/fog0000000065.html
Received on Tuesday, 12 October 2004 14:29:26 GMT

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