RSS : RDF

[ja-a]

hallo,
what is the most imporant difference between RSS and RDF formats?

i'll be very greatfull for any help,
ja-a

 

[Saqib Ali]

RSS is abreviation for "RDF Site Summary".

RSS: RDF Site Summary

In Peace,
Saqib Ali
http://validate.sf.net >< /\/\ |_ Rocks

 

[Peter Flynn]

hallo,
what is the most imporant difference between RSS and RDF formats?

Politics. They're both kludges which are equally broken.

///Peter

 

[Johannes Koch]

hallo,
what is the most imporant difference between RSS and RDF formats?

RDF is a data model. RSS is a (n XML) format that may use RDF (e.g. RSS
1.0) or may not (e.g. RSS 0.91, 2.0).

 

[Andy Dingley]

Politics. They're both kludges which are equally broken.

Why ? What's broken ?

 

[Ashmodai]

Andy Dingley scribbled something along the lines of:

Why ? What's broken ?

Not broken per se, just far from perfect.

 

[Andy Dingley]

Not broken per se, just far from perfect.

So in what way ? Are we talking about RSS or RDF here ?


I see RSS as a damn good protocol (RSS 1.0 anyway), hidden behind some
dire politics and some unusably bad specs for 0.92 & 2.0.

RDF has made some choices over its theoretical directions which aren't
the way some people would have liked to see them, but it's basically a
good implementation within those choices. As to the spec and
documentation, a previously poor situation improved dramatically in
February, following some sterling work by the WG.

 

[Ashmodai]

Andy Dingley scribbled something along the lines of:

So in what way ? Are we talking about RSS or RDF here ?


I see RSS as a damn good protocol (RSS 1.0 anyway), hidden behind some
dire politics and some unusably bad specs for 0.92 & 2.0.

RDF has made some choices over its theoretical directions which aren't
the way some people would have liked to see them, but it's basically a
good implementation within those choices. As to the spec and
documentation, a previously poor situation improved dramatically in
February, following some sterling work by the WG.

I can only say about RDF. RDF sure could be improved a little.
I was actually not trying to second Flynn's opinion, I was rather
attempting to explain what is a common opinion and what he was most
likely talking about.

 

[Andy Dingley]

RDF sure could be improved a little.

How ?

What's wrong with it ? (And which age of RDF are we talking about, for
there has been evolution over time)

How would you improve it ?

What scope is there for a minor incremental change to RDF, rather than
throwing it all away and starting again ? I can see valid arguments
that "it just shouldn't be like that", but not any way to "improve it
a little".