W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > January 2005

Re: Would an Atom-RDF mapping be useful?

From: Frank Manola <fmanola@acm.org>
Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2005 15:51:23 -0500
Message-ID: <41DEF64B.90305@acm.org>
To: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
CC: www-rdf-interest@w3.org

Not being an implementor (much), I'll leave the detailed discussion of 
the cost/benefit tradeoffs of RDF in this application to those most 
directly concerned.  However, I have to comment that, with all due 
deference to the author of [1], the notion that anyone needs to learn 
graph theory to grok RDF belongs to humor in the grand manner.  This 
herring is so red it's positively subversive.

--Frank

Danny Ayers wrote:
> In two recent posts to the atom-syntax list the same basic points have
> been made:
> 
> "Extensibility via a mapping to RDF seems to me to add a lot of
> complexity (most people have never bothered to learn graph theory)
> without any real benefit." [1], "I have not seen any evidence that
> these RDF incantations have any relation to the needs of
> implementors." [21]
> 
> Now I and others believe that the cost side of this can be kept very
> low (actually zero, unless you're writing an extension, in which case
> you'll have rules to follow). What's harder to quantify is the benefit
> to implementors of applications that might use syndication formats
> like RSS or Atom. So I thought I'd go ask where people might actually
> be enjoying similar benefits...
> 
> So, quick questions:
> 
> 1. Are you an "implementor"?
> 2. Would a mapping of Atom to RDF be of benefit to you?
> 3. It what way(s)?
> 
> Cheers,
> Danny.
> 
> [1] http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg11922.html
> [2] http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg11921.html
> 
> 
Received on Friday, 7 January 2005 20:44:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:52:12 GMT