RE: [syndication] Re: Thoughts, questions, and issues.

["Paulo Gaspar" <Paulo.Gaspar@krankikom.de>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: begeddov_proaxis@brain.proaxis.com
> [mailto:begeddov_proaxis@brain.proaxis.com]On Behalf Of Gabe Beged-Dov
> Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2000 04:17
> 
> The RSS1 proposal tries to serve multiple masters...

Too many masters.


> .... It is very close to being syntactically
> equivalent to RSS09 which was RDF based. 

Id does NOT LOOK like RSS that much.


> ... One of the goals of RSS1 is
> to allow both XML processors and RDF processors to grok the document
> format with the emphasis being on XML processors first and RDF
> processors second. 

That seems to be the main problem: RDF focus.

RSS became a popular format with people that couldn't care less about
RDF. The value of RSS is that popularity.

There are a lot of private little "RSS processors" and this standard 
does not care much about them.


> The intent is also to maintain the balance between
> simplicity and power. This is an always challenging task which as you
> mention in another message is dependant on your context and what the
> alternatives are.  

Those that do not need the most complex features should not to have to
"pay" with complexity for them.


> You could argue this as being redundant, as you could argue a lot of
> different aspects of the XML encoding itself as being redundant.

A RDF user is usually better prepared to use a converter in order to 
extract RDF info from RSS than many RSS users are prepared to deal with
the added complexity.

> Still, both XML+namespaces and RDF are W3C standards that we wanted to
> adhere to in the RSS1 proposal while remaining as true as possible to
> the spirit and intent of RSS.

It is not necessary to adhere to namespaces when you do not need them.
Same goes to RDF.

The problem is that the use of RDS and namespaces are getting much more
priority than the spirit of simplicity of RSS.

 
> Some of us also believe in the semantic web and were willing to
> concede a small amount of syntactic overhead in order to provide some
> additional grist for the mill.

The "semantic web" believers can still parse information from simple RSS. 
Even use some converter.

What I do not think to be correct is trying to push RDF into the RSS 
users that have much simpler needs.

In order to push RDF, the only correct way is to provide easy to use 
tools that make its use as simple as using RSS. Work on those tools, 
make them free, easy to use and advertise them making them popular.

Than people will possibly want to use RDF trough its tools.

Just do not try to force them to take something more complex than they 
have when they do not want it.


> If it turns out that overhead is simply
> too much to bear we can consider falling back on the heart of the RSS1
> proposal which is the use of namespace labeled modules to manage
> extensions to the core RSS1 vocabulary.

As I pointed out before, if you can use it as simple as it is and only
get it more complex when you have a specific need... that makes more 
sense.


Have fun,
Paulo