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

RE: [rdfweb-dev] RE: Atom and RDF

From: Joshua Allen <joshuaa@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 09:34:07 -0700
Message-ID: <0E36FD96D96FCA4AA8E8F2D199320E520332824A@RED-MSG-43.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Ian Davis" <iand@internetalchemy.org>
Cc: "Danny Ayers" <danny.ayers@gmail.com>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>

Dublin Core is not just an RDF vocabulary; the terms are used much more
widely that RDF or RSS even.  I would just add to your list that you can
find a lot about what vocabularies people are using (at least for
publishing) by looking on Swoogle; it counts incidences of terms.  I was
surprised by some of the vocabularies that are being used in published
documents.

In any case, I think you need to evaluate "popularity" in terms of both
people publishing it, and peopls *using* it.  Many of the RDF
vocabularies have limited popularity in terms of installed base of apps
with support and people actually *using* the information.  RSS 1.0 is
probably tops (among RDF, not among syndication), and then FOAF is
probably second.  I would guess that DC is more popular than both in
terms of installed base of apps that produce & consume and are used on a
daily basis.  I would also point out that even the most popular RDF
vocabulary, FOAF, does not have support in aggregators right now.  I
will be the first to suggest that aggregators should include support for
FOAF/LOAF for collaborative filtering and rating, so this is not a slam
on RDF.  I am just saying we need to be realistic about what the
*actual* penetration of RDF in the syndication (and overall software)
space is.  I don't think we can serve the cause of advocacy when people
feel like we are stretching facts, saying that "RSS is a glorious
example of RDF" when most RSS 1.0 readers are not even RDF conformant,
and so on.  I just don't think it is necessary or useful to overstate
the success of RDF; in fact it damages the credibility of people who are
working on actually useful stuff IMO.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ian Davis [mailto:iand@internetalchemy.org] 
> Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 1:30 AM
> To: Joshua Allen
> Cc: Danny Ayers; www-rdf-interest@w3.org; rss-dev@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [rdfweb-dev] RE: Atom and RDF
> 
> On 11/10/2004 20:26, Joshua Allen wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> I'm sure you're aware that RSS 1.0 extensions are just RDF 
> vocabularies. 
> http://www.schemaweb.info/ has a good list of RDF schemas, 
> all of which can be used with RSS 1.0.
> 
> I don't have any hard evidence to hand, but I suspect that 
> Dublin Core[1], syndication[2], content[3], admin[4], 
> FOAF[5], and possibly bio[6] are very popular and useful 
> extensions. I certainly see them all the time when I'm processing RSS.
> 
> Ian
> 
> [1] http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/
> [2] http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/
> [3] http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/
> [4] http://webns.net/mvcb/
> [5] http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/
> [6] http://purl.org/vocab/bio/0.1/
> 
> 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 12 October 2004 16:34:39 GMT

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