Re: Re: mod_enclosures proposal

I'd better start by apologising for not having checked the current
proposal(s) before posting, and for stating something that's probably
obvious. I do think it's important though. I'd suggest there are two
specific requirements that override all the others:

1. to be able to cover the simplest case in simple syntax: "this is an
enclosure, here is the URI, this is the media type" (*one* enclosure)
2. to be able to add metadata to it

2. is pretty well covered whatever, but there's a danger in
overlooking the first in the interests of sophistication. Take the
Alan Kay quote: "Simple things should be simple. Complex things should
be possible". In RSS as a whole these have tended to be mutually
exclusive.

People publishing RSS 2.0 with enclosures now would probably be happy
to add the RSS 1.0 version in a minimal form, but might not bother if
they have to build a verbose stack of code just for the simplest case.
Compare the adoption of OCS and OPML.

Cheers,
Danny.



On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 23:29:03 +0100, Suzan Foster <su-ZjWWLV22F01mR6Xm/[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Nov 21, 2004, at 10:50 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> 
> > --- In [email protected], Suzan Foster <su@i...> wrote:
> 
> >> On Nov 18, 2004, at 10:03 PM, lord@c... wrote:
> >
> >> I think that you could profit from a less verbose syntax by losing the
> >> <enc1:children/>. In your proposal the class Enclosures is a class
> >> which contains a single property which has a Collection class which,
> >> etc.. I think the semantics should be: item has a property enclosures,
> >> which is a collection of, etc.. I tested this with a pair of SPARQL
> >> queries (see below), and as you can see the <enc1:children/> is
> >> totally
> >> redundent and just adds an extra triple pattern to get to where you
> >> want to be.
> >
> > Actually, besides "children" "Enclosures" have other properties,
> > such as "rel" and "description". I think they are useful.
> 
> I don't see anything which restricts you from saying:
> 
> <rdf:Alt>
>    <dc:description>Alternatives</dc:description>
>    ...
> </rdf:Alt>
> 
> I adapted my version (http://www.xs4all.nl/~foz/su.test.rdf) with
> descriptions, and it validated.
> 
> 
> 
> >> I'm also not sure what kind of ranges you expect with enc1:quality.
> >> The
> >> numerical value doesn't seem to express much unless you know it's
> >> exact
> >> meaning whilst enc1:quality="high" is maybe subjective, but directly
> >> apparent in it's meaning.
> >
> > What if there is no "high" quality enclosure in the list? Only
> > "medium" and "low"?
> 
> Nothing a good typed literal can't get around :)
> 
> Regards,
> Suzan Foster.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 


-- 

http://dannyayers.com


 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rss-dev/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [email protected]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/