W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > November 2009

Re: RSS 1.0 to transport notifications about RDF resources ?

From: Olivier Berger <olivier.berger@it-sudparis.eu>
Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2009 15:43:59 +0100
To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Cc: public-lod@w3.org
Message-Id: <1257259439.8353.97.camel@hortense>
Le lundi 02 novembre 2009 à 11:58 +0000, Richard Cyganiak a écrit :
> 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 ?
> >>


> 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.

If I really want some RDF, then an RDFied ATOM would be the best
solution ;) ... then http://djpowell.net/blog/entries/Atom-RDF.html may
be interesting to add to my reading list.

Thanks for these details.

> 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.

For the record, this was mentioned in

I also found the RSS results of connotea mentioned in
http://archive.nodalpoint.org/node/1642 although that's not exactly
recent, but still interesting.

> > 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.)

That's probably a good point, although it wouldn't hurt being consistent
in having RDF everywhere if it doesn't add too much verbosity, so that
feeds of facts can both be subscribed to in RSS clients and participate
in the SemWeb/LOD.

Thanks for your feedback.

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 Tuesday, 3 November 2009 14:45:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:16:01 UTC