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

[Gary Teter <bigdog@bulldogbeach.com>]

Ahhhhh. Now I get it. I had forgotten what RSS stood for -- in a "site
summary" context, the usage of RDF makes perfect sense.

In some ways "summarizing sites" and "syndicating content" are
intertwingled, but in other ways they are indeed different. I imagine when
the dust settles that we'll have a separate standard for syndication; let's
just hope we're all smart enough to call it "RSS." :-)


on 8/21/00 5:08 PM, Edd Dumbill at edd@usefulinc.com wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 04:47:40PM -0700, Gary Teter wrote:
>> I just don't understand, practically speaking, why RDF needs to be a part of
>> the syndication process.
> 
> Key point. Syndication is just one thing you can do with RSS. There are
> many more interesting things. Syndication as a task requires a different
> set of stuff than describing a web site, this seems to me to be what Ian
> Graham is saying.
> 
> So, RSS is "site summary". If you choose to syndicate that metadata,
> cool. There are many other things one could do with it.
> 
> In my opinion RSS and syndication should be separated. Syndication is
> about routing, rights, scheduling etc. That applies to any content,
> whether metadata, images, MP3s or whatever.
> 
> I don't think discussions conflating the two ideas of metadata and
> syndication will ever reach a happy resolution.

-- 
Gary Teter, Big Dog
Bulldog Beach Interactive http://www.bulldogbeach.com
There's always an excuse, and it usually involves coffee.