... A lot of the ideas suggested here of late are going to be hard or impossible to make backwards compatible. I think we are talking about at least a possibleMessage 1 of 80 , Sep 19, 2002View Source
> >Perhaps if we were to follow the common convention of using lowercase toA lot of the ideas suggested here of late are going to be hard or impossible
> >start the names of predicates and uppercase to start the names of
> +1 on that, it makes things a lot clearer. But...
> For such a change there would have to be a long period of deprecation for
> the current style (though if a name change is on the cards,
> perhaps a 'year
> zero' approach might be in order).
to make backwards compatible. I think we are talking about at least a
possible year zero and I would only suggest such a change in the names if we
were to proceed as such. A lot of people seem to be brain-dumping so I
though I'd join in :)
> We'd have to assume that it would break current tools (IYes. Although RDF tools that can make use of schema shouldn't have too much
> generally use Jena
> for RDF, and that would need a little editing and recompiling to change,
> which from what Dave said about Raptor that would be similar).
difficulty, so you might be one of the few people with few hassles here.
> How feasible would support be for reading both styles - ugly or Ugly?If you tried to do it in one lump it would be extremely ugly. If you had
different parsers producing the same internal representation then it should
> How sensitive to case are current 'straight xml' tools? (the one's thatWell they are meant to be case-sensitive. That said they're meant to have
> don't care that it's RDF).
proper support for UTF-8 and UTF-16 as well, which apparantly some RSS tools
... Whoa there, what pseudo-2.0 understands about namespaces and what s correct about using them are two entirely different matters. And it s not our job toMessage 80 of 80 , Sep 20, 2002View Source
> RSS did fork. What is the major difference namespaces and RDF.Whoa there, what pseudo-2.0 understands about namespaces and what's correct
> Namespaces is no longer an issue. While it wasn't the name, it is a
about using them are two entirely different matters. And it's not our job to
educate the 2.0 developers on fixing that.
> I'm only suggesting that the name reflect its purpose rather then itsSure but we'll need to get consensus on what it does before we pick a name. I'm
> technical inerts. I'm opposed to XML being in the name also just less
> so. I'm not out to attack RDF nor am I suggesting it has to go. (This
> goes to me comments earlier also.)
quite strongly inclined to recognize it's about pushing topical ephemera about.
Stuff that looks sot of like news. Can it be used for other stuff? Sure! But
for anyone still clinging to 'site summaries' sadly there are very few feeds
> This is a fair definition for today's common usage, but somewhatWell, we're now three years into RSS and the staggering majority of feeds are
> limiting for future potential uses that have been discussed here in
> the past. I can think of applications where the information is not
> updated "frequently" (a vague term) or where "alerting" is not its
all about news-like items. Stuff like alerting and what-not are perfectly
suited for use as modules. (I have done a lot of thinking here). As for past
hopes of other uses, there's really very little data to support that any
significant effort/progress has been made on those fronts. Tons of potential