Re: The Tragedy of RSS

In a message dated 10/4/2002 4:08:20 AM US Mountain Standard Time, 
jon@spin.ie writes:]

> As much as I am in favour of RSS1.0 (enough that I am on the RSS1.0 Working
> Group) I do not think the W3C need fight at all to keep the RDF in RSS
> despite the advantaged that would give to my vested interests. That's our
> job! Indeed if you really believe that RSS2.0 is simpler (pass the salt) it
> would make just as much sense for people here to actively support 2.0.
> 

Boy, I don't understand that at all.  Why would an RDF-interest group
support RSS 2.0 if it is sans RDF?  Additionally, the RDF primer intended
on putting RSS 1.0 as an example of a current use of RDF.  Since RSS 2.0 
exists and will definitely be put in some software (thus have a user 
community) --
is it not disingenuous to hold it up as a flagship use of RDF?  You would at
a minimum have to admit that you do not have consensus that it is a viable
application of RDF *today*.


> The only real connection between those concerned with RSS1.0 and those
> concerned with RDF is what the RDF crowd can do for the RSS1.0 crowd
> (particularly in regards to technical issues in RSS which have their 
> origins
> in RDF) and what the RSS1.0 crowd can do for the RDF crowd (particularly in
> that RSS1.0 has been an intro to RDF for many people). Beyond that I don't
> think an interest in, or evangelising of, one necessarily requires much
> attention to the other.
> 

Well, since RSS 1.0 is an application of RDF ... it's utility and 
adoption are directly related to the utility and adoption of RDF.
If you are not concerned about that ... good luck.  Me, I like to build 
software and standards that people actually use.

 - Mike
----------------------------------------------------
Michael C. Daconta
Director, Web & Technology Services
www.mcbrad.com