RE: The Tragedy of RSS

> Norman Paskin 
>
> I don't think it follows that including DC in RSS is a 
> win-win.  

I disagree. Think of it as horse trading. 


> Doesn't seem to be the case that because something 
> is simple it is useful in every case.  

Don't generalize the issue. RSS sans RDF is clearly useful and
accessible to a lot of people. We expect RSS with RDF to be useful to a
lot of people. In the meantime, Dublin Core strikes me as sufficient RDF
for RSS 2.0. 


> If RDF is going to be useful in dealing with real world 
> problems then it will be necessary to deal with complex 
> descriptions that require more expressive data models able to 
> differentiate between agents, documents, contexts, events, 
> and the like. 

Hmm, what do you mean exactly by "real world"? 

You're assuming that people have the time, expertise, consistency, and
funds to markup their information with ontologies. Unless you have a
very simple way of allowing people to do that with incurring upfront
costs, you run right into the active user paradox, one that seems to
plague RDF's adoption.


> Rather than DC, ontology-based metadata systems 
> that are based on structured data models:  to name a few,  
> MPEG-21's RDD; SMPTE; CIDOC's CRM;  the library world FRBR, 
> etc; and tools which provide a means of mapping these like 
> indecs, the ABC model etc. 

You're generalizing again. I'm not sure what this has to do with RSS...
?


Bill de hÓra 
--
Propylon
www.propylon.com

Received on Friday, 4 October 2002 07:00:20 UTC