Re: RSS 1.1

Bill Kearney wrote:

>Dealing with multi-lingual applications is a mess.  I continue to think it's
>just better to make them separate feeds.  Too many of the tools do not have
>the ability to deal with compound feeds.  Either as 'more than one feed in
>the document' or as multi-lingual representations of the 'same' data within
>a single feed.  I'd rather see development of mutiple feeds within a single
>document long before multilingual.  Not as a bias against expressing content
>more flexibly but as a preference to solve other problems first.  I think
>that by dealing with a single document containing multiple feeds it'll make
>it easier to deal with multilingual content.
>  
>
Having multiple feeds for different languages is a way to go, however I 
don't think parses should have so big problems encountering multiple 
title-tags to make it necessary to forbid effectively multi-lingual 
content. It brings some advantages to have different language versions 
share the same URL: several-meta information (like user rating) is 
language independent - it is handy if one can recommend an article to 
persons speaking other languages by its URI.

>>Regarding the design of the spec I would prefer to start with a
>>serialization independent definition of the ontology, and define the
>>concept of "RSS - Document" in a second section. This is to make clear
>>that usage of the RSS-Vocabulary is not limited to RSS Documents, does
>>not necessarily imply some specific serialization and is independent of
>>XML. By contrast an RSS-Document is an XML Document following the
>>defined syntax which happens to interpretable as RDF/XML as a graph
>>using RSS - like this people only interested in the vocabulary would not
>>be discouraged by irrelevant details.
>>    
>>
>
>What use-case can you offer that better illustrates what you're talking
>about here?  It's not clear just what you mean.
>  
>
OK, let's try.

UC 1
The user is primarily using other RDF-Schemas (like one who wants to add 
the rss:items he last wrote to it's foaf-information), she doesn't care 
about the serialization details, it should be possible for her to see a 
documentation of the RSS-Vocabulary without all the noise of 
XML-Details. (This user doesn't have to know about rss-documents)

UC 2
The user created an RSS:Channel with an RDF-editor, standard "save as 
RDF/XML" will not create a valid RSS-File, thus she will have to choose 
"save as RSS", she will be asked to specify the primary channel of the 
RSS-file and the primary language, the model will be stored as valid RSS 
file but still contain all the triples of the model. For this to be 
possible RDF tools developers should have a documentation of the 
serialization as a subset of RDF/XML.

UC 3
The user knows nothing about RDF and doesn't care. It should be possible 
for him to just have described in term of XML how to create or parse an 
RSS-Document, he doesn't have to care about the RDF-Vocabulary, triples 
are a side effect without consequence. (This user doesn't have to know 
about the rss-vocabulary)

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/