Re: The Tragedy of RSS


Suppose "the struggle" connected with insufficient deep grounds used !
Look at the "To keep abreast of the 21st century" paper

Best regards,
Leonid and copy to
Leonid Ototsky,
Chief Specialist of the Computer Center,
Magnitogorsk Iron&Steel Works (MMK)-

Thursday, October 03, 2002, 11:11:46 PM, you wrote:

Mac> Return-Path: <>
Mac> Received: from ( []) by (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id g93LNWPh031020 for <>; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 03:23:32 +0600 (YEKST)
Mac> (envelope-from
Mac> Received: from (localhost []) by (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id g93L9WE07476 for <>; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 02:09:32 +0500 (ESK)
Mac> Received: from ( []) by (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id g93LCflK065446 for <>; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 03:12:43 +0600 (YEKST) (envelope-from
Mac> Received: (from lists@localhost) by (8.11.6+Sun/8.11.6) id g93LCr900452; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 17:12:53 -0400 (EDT)
Mac> Resent-Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 17:12:53 -0400 (EDT)
Mac> Resent-Message-Id: <>
Mac> Received: from ( []) by (8.11.6+Sun/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g93LCdB00383 for <>; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 17:12:39 -0400 (EDT)
Mac> Received: from ( []) by (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA17773 for <>; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 17:12:39 -0400
Mac> From:
Mac> Received: from by (mail_out_v34.13.) id r.159.153fd936 (1320) for <>; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 17:11:46 -0400 (EDT)
Mac> Message-ID: <>
Mac> Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 17:11:46 EDT
Mac> To:
Mac> MIME-Version: 1.0
Mac> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_159.153fd936.2ace0c92_boundary"
Mac> X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 10630
Mac> Subject: The Tragedy of RSS
Mac> Resent-From:
Mac> X-Mailing-List: <> archive/latest/7098
Mac> X-Loop:
Mac> Sender:
Mac> Resent-Sender:
Mac> Precedence: list
Mac> List-Id: <>
Mac> List-Help: <>
Mac> List-Unsubscribe: <>
Mac> Status:
Mac> After seeing this article
Mac> on XML Hack and
Mac> reading links for several hours (and some digression), I
Mac> arrived at these facts:

Mac> 1. RSS 0.90 - RDF Site Summary developed by Dan Libby.
Mac> 2. RSS 0.91 - Rich Site Summary developed by Dan Libby as a
Mac> compromise to achieve validation and simplicity.
Mac> 3. RSS 0.92, 0.93, 0.9* Rich Site Summary developed by Dave Winer.
Mac> 4. RSS 1.0  - RDF Site Summary reintroduces RDF for syndication.
Mac> 5. RSS 2.0  - Real Simple Syndication developed by Dave Winer.
Mac> 6. ???

Mac> It is obvious there is literally a competition over the syndication
Mac> problem domain between RDF and an application of XML Schema.
Mac> Besides the tragic tug of war over who's solution is "better" - I
Mac> believe the real tragedy is RDF losing a battle that it should not
Mac> have fought.  I believe that Dave Winer, wielding the "simplicity
Mac> sledgehammer", will defeat RDF as a more widely adopted
Mac> solution to simple syndication.  The bottom line will be that
Mac> RSS 2.0 is simpler than RSS 1.0 and since RDF still cannot
Mac> prove the value of its additional complexity -- simplicity wins.
Mac> In other words, if you take away (or discount) the "it will enable
Mac> a wonderfully semantic future" (safely procrastinated away) -- you
Mac> have no technical arguments that can stand up to being bludgeoned
Mac> by the simplicity and "time is money" argument.

Mac> So, why is RDF in this fight?  I think RDF is a misnomer.  It should not be
Mac> called the Resource Description Framework as that is only one
Mac> target for its function and not the best one.  It is obvious that
Mac> RDF can be used to describe more than just electronic resources
Mac> and knowledge representation is also more than just description (e.g.
Mac> assertion).  A more accurate name would be "Knowledge Graph
Mac> Language" (KGL).  Although I do not know the history behind the
Mac> name RDF (if you do please post it), I believe it narrowly (and thus
Mac> incorrectly) characterizes the language.  Why would you hinder a
Mac> language with such a name?  I believe the name is a gimmick, like
Mac> java applets,  to slip knowledge representation into the web without too
Mac> much friction with the more mature SGML/DTD/XML/Schema data
Mac> representation world.  In fact, some rationalize the RDF in RSS 1.0 as
Mac> a good "wedge" into widespread use.  But unfortunately, many RSS
Mac> implementors and developers believe that the syntactic overhead is
Mac> not worth it.

Mac> So, if you change the name -- you can concentrate on the bigger
Mac> fish like:
Mac>   1. KGL (formerly RDF) as the basis for OWL.
Mac>   2. Being able to easily embed KGL statements in existing XML data.
Mac>   3. Make the KGL serialization syntax approach N3 simplicity.

Mac> If you don't change the name, the W3C must fight tooth and nail to
Mac> keep RDF in RSS in terms of adoption as "resource description" would then
Mac> be your "main game".   Of course, if MS, IBM, Sun or Oracle adopt RSS 2.0
Mac> (or both) that will be an uphill (and probably futile) battle.  Anyone know
Mac> what Microsoft thinks of RDF?  Are Microsofties and Dave Winer SOAP
Mac> buddies?  (pun intended) ;)

Mac> Why am I worried abouth this?
Mac> I do not want this to be a foreshadow of the larger struggle to achieve
Mac> the semantic web ("the war").  Because if the RSS battle is painted as
Mac> a "Utopian Complexity" (RDF) versus "Real World Simplicity" (Real Simple
Mac> Syndication) -- RDF will lose.  A few RSS type defeats and the semantic
Mac> web war will be seen in the same "utopian" light.  So, I can live with
Mac> the tragedy of RDF Site Summary if it avoids the tragedy of the
Mac> Semantic Web.

Mac> Does anyone else hear the cannon shots across the bow
Mac> of the SS Semantic Web?

Mac>  - Mike
Mac> ----------------------------------------------------
Mac> Michael C. Daconta
Mac> Director, Web & Technology Services

Received on Friday, 4 October 2002 03:17:59 UTC