Re: RSS extensibility

[Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 07:44:46 -0800, Tim Bray <Tim.Bray@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Jan 7, 2005, at 5:48 AM, Danny Ayers wrote:
> 
> > <feed "http://purl.org/atom/ns#
> > xmlns:prism="http://prismstandard.org/namespaces/1.2/basic/";>
> > <entry>
> >    <prism:embargoDate>2005-02-15</prism:embargoDate>
> > ...
> > </entry>
> > </feed>
> >
> > [[
> > embargoDate
> > Earliest date (potentially including time) the resource may be used
> > according to the rights agreement, or clause in the rights agreement.
> > ]]
> >
> > So the human meaning of an 'embargoDate' element is reasonably clear.
> > The problem is that with RSS 2.0's approach to extensibility, there is
> > no relationship defined between this element and any part of the feed
> > data. Ok, it's an embargo date. But the embargo date of what?
> 
> The embargo date of the entry.  This seems painfully obvious, and any
> other reading would be willfully contrary.  

To you maybe, but how are applications to know that?

Either software understands
> what embargoDate means or it doesn't, and if it does, well then, it'll
> embargo the entry, and if not, not.

But it isn't that black and white. The software may understand that
embargoDate is a property of the entry, without knowing anything about
embargos. This is useful information, especially if you wish you want
to merge data from disparate sources (and possibly republish), an
scenario that's becoming more widespread in syndication.

> I have not seen any evidence that these RDF incantations have any
> relation to the needs of implementors. -Tim

Now that really is wilful contrariness. I made a comparison between
the approach to extensibility taken by RSS 1.0 and RSS 2.0. I
suggested that RSS 1.0 had advantages that would benefit Atom. I also
suggested that RDF wasn't needed for Atom to enjoy those advantages.
Where are the incantations?

I can find more evidence of the utility of RSS 1.0's approach if
necessary, but I would have hoped that contributors to this project
will have done some research into what application implementors are
doing with RSS 1.0. Quick quote:
[[
As a science publisher, however, we are minded to continue to produce
RSS 1.0 for the immediate future, since it meets all our current
needs, while monitoring the Atom development to see what end utility
it might afford. Our current view is that Atom does not provide the
necessary level of metadata extensibility and interoperability that we
are able to achieve with RSS 1.0.
]]
http://dlib.anu.edu.au/dlib/december04/hammond/12hammond.html

Cheers,
Danny.


-- 

http://dannyayers.com