- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2009 11:58:41 +0000
- To: Olivier Berger <olivier.berger@it-sudparis.eu>
- Cc: public-lod@w3.org
On 2 Nov 2009, at 10:21, Olivier Berger wrote: > Le vendredi 23 octobre 2009 à 19:01 -0400, Richard Cyganiak a écrit : >> On 22 Oct 2009, at 10:52, Olivier Berger wrote: >>> Is RSS 1.0 obsolete ? >> >> Yes. >> > > Ok, thanks for your response... but would you care to qualify it a bit > more ? I consider RSS 1.0 a horrible format for two reasons. It's a poor RDF format because of the weird syntax requirements (you have to do a specific XML serialization or it's not valid) and because it doesn't SPARQL well (rdf:Seq). It's a poor syndication format, because RSS 2.0 does the same job in a simpler way, and Atom does the same job in a *much* better way. So RSS 1.0 is the worst of both worlds. On the other hand, as Leigh pointed out in a different thread, Talis uses RSS 1.0 plus some RDF properties borrowed from OpenSearch to express feeds/lists of search results on the Talis platform, so there's some precedent for using it in the way you said, and this also makes RSS 1.0 not quite as dead as I thought/hoped. > I.e., what's the prefered RDF based replacement ? Content syndication a la Atom/RSS is not a problem that requires RDF, IMO. I would probably use Atom with RDF payloads. I love RDF as a data model, but notifications about updates to items in the data model do not necessarily have to be encoded in the same data model. (Although I am prepared to believe you if you told me that you really really need an RDF-based format, so no need to argue that point.) Richard > > Thanks in advance. > > Best regards, > -- > Olivier BERGER <olivier.berger@it-sudparis.eu> > http://www-public.it-sudparis.eu/~berger_o/ - OpenPGP-Id: 1024D/ > 6B829EEC > Ingénieur Recherche - Dept INF > Institut TELECOM, SudParis (http://www.it-sudparis.eu/), Evry (France) >
Received on Monday, 2 November 2009 11:59:24 UTC