- From: Joshua Allen <joshuaa@microsoft.com>
- Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 20:39:11 -0700
- To: "Jon Hanna" <jon@hackcraft.net>, "Danny Ayers" <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
- Cc: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>, <atom-syntax@imc.org>, "Dare Obasanjo" <kpako@yahoo.com>
> happening (i.e. give a discription of what possible > representations could be obtained for a given resource, and > in what cases) RDF would be the natural source. Yeah, I actually meant to refer to the "Accepts" header, which is one of many examples of useful metadata passed in HTTP headers. HTTP has a metadata and extensibility story and doesn't use RDF -- and that is not worth losing sleep over. > Taking RDF out of RSS just doesn't compare. Danny was talking about Atom, and specifically about the use cases of using Atom as a transport for routing and publishing RDF. Atom doesn't have any RDF to "take out". And it's perfectly feasible to route and publish RDF using Atom or RSS 2.0 without having to modify them to be based on RDF. We already have one syndication format based on RDF, and one based on XML. What could we possibly gain by starting a holy war about whether the third should be switched from XML to RDF? (I would point out that a mapping between RDF and XML in the case of Atom is trivial, BTW)
Received on Tuesday, 12 October 2004 03:39:15 UTC