- From: Joshua Allen <joshuaa@microsoft.com>
- Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 19:43:49 -0700
- To: "Dare Obasanjo" <kpako@yahoo.com>, "Danny Ayers" <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
- Cc: <rdfweb-dev@vapours.rdfweb.org>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>, <semanticweb@yahoogroups.com>, <rss-dev@yahoogroups.com>, <atom-syntax@imc.org>
> > Speaking philosophically, I'm starting to wonder if the > > mightn't simply have entered into a pact with some horned deity or > Seriously, is such a comment really warranted? I assumed this was just a tongue-in-cheek nod to the sudden success of podcasting, "must be a faustian bargain, because it sure couldn't have been a well-planned extensibility philosophy!" In any case, I wanted to make it clear that I wasn't slamming RDF. I was simply disagreeing with Danny's characterization of a "polarized" choice between RDF and XML in Atom/RSS. I'm the biggest cheerleader for triples data model and semweb, but I wouldn't suggest that we rewrite HTTP to use RDF for extensibility. There are certainly some theoretical benefits we could get, but it wouldn't be worth the fight, and it would make adoption hared. Therefore, I would disagree with anyone who wants to start a battle over "RDF vs. conneg in HTTP". It's a pointless battle. I think that retrofitting RDF into RSS is exactly the same -- lots of extra complexity and drama for no obvious benefit, and you can use RDF in RSS already without having to mess with the transport.
Received on Tuesday, 12 October 2004 02:44:23 UTC