[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Proposed addition to Charter


Dave Pawson wrote:


At 10:11 21/03/2004, Danny Ayers wrote:

I described some benefits to Atom and workload issues in my previous mail [1]. I see no reason it should slow things down, the draft schema is already mostly in place.

Ok, the RDF mapping can appear outside of Atom, but I suspect it would be poor politics to disenfranchise the RDF community even more, and further marginalise Atom.


I think that's pushing it a bit Danny?

Not really, quite a lot of people went silent on this list when RDF/XML ceased to be an option. That was among the 'visible iceberg' of this list - projected onto the world at large a lot of people that might be interested in working with Atom alongside RDF systems simply won't bother, maybe opting for RSS 1.0 instead. I know of quite a few people who are wanting to work with Atom in RDF systems right now. RDF and related technologies have gained a lot more momentum in the past year or so, the revised specs going to W3C Recommendation being a big push. Atom can benefit from that momentum pretty easily, by being RDF-friendly.

I tend to agree with the view that if the rdf version is a part of atom,
it will be taken as an equal alternative, whereas the plain text XML seems
the only 'normative' one by agreement.

But the point here is that there won't be an "RDF version" as such, just a (formally specified) description of how to represent Atom data in the RDF model. No RDF syntax/format will be specified within Atom. There's an air gap.


How about the compromise position?
a link from the spec to the rdf version?

I'd be happy with any kind of hook for RDF developers.

Cheers,
Danny.