- From: Bill de hÓra <dehora@eircom.net>
- Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 13:37:58 +0100
- To: "'Dan Brickley'" <danbri@w3.org>
- Cc: "'Paskin, Norman \(DOI-ELS\)'" <n.paskin@DOI.org>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
> From: Dan Brickley [mailto:danbri@w3.org] > > FWIW I've worked on RSS 1.0, DC, ABC as well as tracking the > INDECS, CRM etc work. There's no conflict: RDF was designed > so that all such vocabs could be deployed within the same > overarching framework. And RSS 1.0 was designed so that wide > range of descriptive vocabulaies could be deployed within RSS > feeds. Oftentimes, Dublin Core is plenty complex enough. > Sometimes, a more explicitly modelled representation is worth > the extra effort it imposes on consumers and producers of the feeds. Ok Dan, I assume by plenty complex, you mean adequate, not complicated. For example something I've come across: using DC/RSS to feed SMS notifications. I'm buggered if I can see where the complexity is in the data or what possible objection anyone could have to having DC in RSS; RDF in the large I can understand. Bill de hÓra -- Propylon www.propylon.com
Received on Friday, 4 October 2002 08:39:39 UTC