Re: Re: mod_enclosures proposal

Danny Ayers wrote:

>I'm not sure, but until there's a good proportion of RDF-capable
>aggregators out in the wild, I've a feeling it would be
>counter-productive to press any harder for full RDF/XML
>interpretation. I'm pretty sure that increased syntax complexity
>without an infrastructure that can use it won't help adoption - the
>'simple' XML crowd run a mile.
>  
>
Well, why should the "simple" xml crowd choose RSS 1.0 anyway? If you 
look at RSS as XML it is unnecessarily complex.  On the other hand - are 
there major programming languages with no existing free rdf/xml parser? 
If not I guess the better way would be to make pressure for a standard 
RDF-Serialization which is easier to parse (Trix and N-Triples for 
instance are much easier), rather than having a special syntax for RSS 
and each extension module.

>On the other hand, if for every new vocab used alongside RSS there's
>an app demonstrating the coolness, we might just make progress.
>  
>
certainly. but on the one side there are people writing and using 
xml-style extensions which either are not valid rdf/xml or if they are, 
they are not suitable for semantic aggregation because they assign 
properties to named resources which have only a local scope (such as the 
in the proposed mod_iamge). On the other side you cannot just use 
RDF-Vocabularies without writing a document about their serialization 
in  RSS-feed and proposing this to the community. Both make it hard to 
just write that tiny nice killer-app.

cheers,
reto



 
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/