Re: "Role of RSS in Science Publishing"

[Robert Sayre <mint@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Ben Lund wrote:


> 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.  

Sure, but not many people use RSS1 correctly. I just saw this:
<dc:subject>java programming security staticanalysis</dc:subject>

More interesting in a plain old text search engine.

> 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.

RSS1 has two separate data models as well--the RSS1 spec amounts to an 
XML schema. Putting rdf:RDF in an Atom document is going to get you 
cleaner data.

"The use of the enclosing <rdf:RDF> tag implies a choice and a 
contract... The contract is that you're adhering to this choice into the 
future, and to the constraints this places on the syndication format, 
and the underlying model of the data."[0]

It would be wishful thinking to say a large percentage of RSS1 feeds are 
following that contract.

Robert Sayre

[0] http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg00214.html


"given that the RSS 1.0 spec utilizes RDF, I believe that the tools and 
format itself should be RDF aware _from the start_.  A solid foundation 
is key to building anything that is going to last. This means that it is 
the *data model* that is important, not the physical syntax of "start 
with channel, then several items, etc".  In fact, I believe the spec 
itself should be an RDF Schema depicting the data model, with simple 
examples of how to express it in XML.  Anything less results in 
confusion and a mish-mash of incompatible tools, where some are simple 
XML processors and some are full RDF-aware processors.  I see this as 
the largest hurdle for RSS as RDF, given the comparative lack of RDF 
tools to XML tools.  If we are not willing to commit to this in the spec 
and tools, then we may as well go back to a plain XML format.  In other 
words, put up or shut up. "

--Dan Libby
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/syndication/message/586