RE : "Role of RSS in Science Publishing"

["Laurent Le Meur" <laurent.lemeur@xxxxxxx>]

>
>1) Aggregating information where two different trusted sources both
>publish data about the same item.  For example, a feed from a science
>publisher that gave the bibliographic metadata, and a feed from a
>citation indexer gave 'cited by' information.  How does the intermediary
>concatenate the two blobs of XML?  Remember, I'm talking about
>situations where the intermediary doesn't understand the namespace being
>used, so from the point of view of the aggregator, the two blobs look
>like this:
>
><entry>
>   <id>http://www.example.com/item1</id>
>   <title>Blah blah</title>
>   ...
>   <xyz:tag1>gfdgfdgfd</xyz:tag1>
>   <abc:tag2>
>    <xyz:tag3>gfdgfd</xyz:tag3>
>    <xyz:tag3>65454343</xyz:tag3>
>   </abc:tag2>
></entry>
>
>and
>
><entry>
>   <id>http://www.example.com/item1</id>
>   <title>Blah blah</title>
>   ...
>   <xyz:tag4>gfdgfd</xyz:tag4>
>   <xyz:tag4>bvcbvvcbvc</xyz:tag4>
>   <xyz:tag4>ytytryrt</xyz:tag4>
>   <xyz:tag4>6768875</xyz:tag4>
></entry>
>
>There's no easy way of working out how to combine this information.
>However, with RDF, you can just concatenate the triples.
>

You must bear in mind that the atom:id element "conveys a permanent, globally unique
identifier for the entry". It does identify the set of statements, and is not (like
the RSS item_uri) the common subject for that set. So if two aggregated entries have
the same atom:id, they must be coming from a unique provider and represent the same
information (or revision of the same information).

>
>> I also don't understand why including rdf:RDF in atom:entry is
>> insufficient. You'd have to consume it with an RDF parser and it would
>> come in a container that isn't RDF itself, but I don't see a problem.
>
>My view is that the RDF model buys you everything you need at the moment
>for an extensibility model -- that's why we use RSS 1.0 currently.  So,
>I don't particularly have a problem with the approach of putting rdf:RDF
>in an atom:entry. But that does beg the question of why Atom needs two
>separate data models.

Could it be because RDF is good for the representation of metadata (about some remote
content or resource), but Atom is also there to *embed* content?

Laurent Le Meur
AFP



-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

This e-mail, and any file transmitted with it, is confidential and  intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If you have received this email in error, please  contact the sender and delete the email from your system. If you are  not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy  this email.

For more information on Agence France-Presse, please visit our web site at http://www.afp.com

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-