Re: Re: mod_enclosures proposal

Why not make better use of RDF and more closely model it after the way a 2.0
element appears?

<enc:enclosure rdf:resource="http://some/external/file.mp3" />

Or merely use:

<rdfs:seeAlso rdf:resource="http://some/external/file.mp3" />

And then use a subseqent rdf:Description to 'say more' about it:

<rdf:Description rdf:about="http://some/external/file.mp3" />
    <dc:title>Some music file</dc:title>
    <dc... insert various and sundry dublin core elements.... />

    <enc:length>1939570</enc:length>
    <enc:type>audio/mpeg</enc:type>

    ...as well as anything else...
</rdf:Description>

Perhaps some sort of "this is intended to be treated as an enclosure" markup
would also help.

Given that RDFs already has a great many ways to describe collections,
alternates and the like it seems like a sort of bad idea to go reinventing
them here.

It's true that discovering this data does require using RDF-centric methods.
It doesn't require using only an RDF capable parser (although it helps) as
much as it requires knowning to /look/ for the added metadata.

So rather than ask folks to jump through a different sort of hoop, why not
just make it clear that using RDF constructs are helpful and worth
understanding for /more/ than just things like enclosures?   This way they
learn more about handling *ANYTHING* and not just a special case.  They'll
have to learn the special case anyway but at least their tool will have
learned something else for the in-between handling.

-Bill Kearney


----- Original Message ----- 
From: <[email protected]>
> --- In [email protected], Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@g...> wrote:
> > 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
>
> Danny,
>
> The requirements you have are certainly was high on our
> list when we put together the proposal.
>
> For example here is single enclosure in current, RSS 2.0
> spec syntax:
>
> <item>
> ...
>     <enclosure
>        url="http://www.crocodile.org/sounds/matrosi.mp3"
>        length="1939570"
>        type="audio/mpeg" />
> ...
> </item>
>
> and in our, proposed one in RSS 1.0:
>
> <item>
> ...
>     <enc1:enclosures>
>         <enc:Enclosure
>             enc:url="http://www.crocodile.org/sounds/matrosi.mp3"
>             enc:length="1939570"
>             enc:type="audio/mpeg" />
>         </enc1:enclosures
> ...
> </item>
>
> I think we are as close as possible to the orignial syntax. Also
> it is quite simple.
>
> As to adding metadata, this is provided by us by nature of RDF, and
> users can attach any kind of peoperties to enclosure nodes. We could
> not foresee
> all possible kind of properties for all possible data types enclosure
> can contain,
> so we left this open and defined only basic properties like "length".
>
> Check out the proposal, it have more details. We will be glad to hear
> your and other people feedback.
>
> Sincerely,
> Vadim



 
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/