Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [RSS-DEV] Who are we and what are we trying to accomplish anyway ?

Expand Messages
  • Seth Russell
    ... Bolder dash! Programmers never had any problem with name_value pairs ... they loved and embraced them .. right? Well RDF is just name_value pairs *about
    Message 1 of 20 , Sep 21, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Ian Graham wrote:

      >I believe the issue is that the triples add an extra abstraction layer
      >that developers don't understand or want.
      >
      Bolder dash! Programmers never had any problem with name_value pairs
      ... they loved and embraced them .. right? Well RDF is just name_value
      pairs *about things*. Programmers never had any problem with relational
      databases ... they loved and embraced them .... right? Well RDF is just
      a relational database with a fixed and simplified column structure ...
      i.e. just three columns. If you look at RDF as data and forget about
      all the abstract semantics, it actually is a much simpler solution to
      the problem of saying anything about anything. It's much simpler than
      contriving customized structures every time we want to say something new.

      >Well, I think some of Dave's ideas are poorly designed, but otherwise this
      >is precisely the model (and rationale) he is following. OTOH, I am not in
      >favor of specifications designed by fiat, as opposed to by some sort of WG
      >consensus.
      >
      Well sometimes a single person can design a better structure ... where a committee will end up with an aberration of compromises trying to attain everybody's conflicting goals. I believe that RSS 1.0 is just such a aberration. But the 2.0 spec preserves compatibility with thousands of .9x feeds, yet allows for just the additional properties to be added which people are screaming for. It seems to me that the RSS 2.0 spec just reflects where the market is and where it wants to go. It's simple, uncontrived, and preserves the momentum of RSS. It is truly going to be difficult for a committee to come up with a better spec.

      >One would hope so.. however, the 'muckiness' of type (1) RSS may make it
      >hard to transform this into type (2)
      >
      Not at all. In fact we can transform any kind of items streaming in
      channel documents into RDF nodes and arrows streaming in whatever
      media. Emails, Usenet posts, XHTML marked up web pages, arbitrary XML,
      RSS .9x, RSS 2.0, RSS 1.0 etc .... all can be included. I bid 2000
      lines of code (or less) and a simple RDF description for each new kind
      of format.

      Seth Russell
      http://robustai.net/
    • Ian Graham
      ... If the triples were that simple, then everyone would be happy to use them :-/ But people don t seem to be entirely happy (otherwise this continuing
      Message 2 of 20 , Sep 21, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        On Sat, 21 Sep 2002, Seth Russell wrote:

        > Ian Graham wrote:
        >
        > >I believe the issue is that the triples add an extra abstraction layer
        > >that developers don't understand or want.
        > >
        > Bolder dash! Programmers never had any problem with name_value pairs
        > ... they loved and embraced them .. right? Well RDF is just name_value
        > pairs *about things*. Programmers never had any problem with relational
        > databases ... they loved and embraced them .... right? Well RDF is just
        > a relational database with a fixed and simplified column structure ...
        > i.e. just three columns. If you look at RDF as data and forget about
        > all the abstract semantics, it actually is a much simpler solution to
        > the problem of saying anything about anything. It's much simpler than
        > contriving customized structures every time we want to say something new.

        If the triples were that simple, then everyone would be happy to use
        them :-/

        But people don't seem to be entirely happy (otherwise this continuing
        discussion wouldn't be happening). I suspect this is because the
        simplicity of raw triples gets lost in the complexity of the XML notation,
        and in the complexity of the RDF semantics (the RDF specs are long for
        good reason!).

        I think RDF is very cool -- and I think it is an important and useful
        technology. But I don't think you need the power of RDF for all use
        cases of RSS.

        It's true developers love relational databases. But then, if you're only
        working with a few simple resources and only simple indexing requirements,
        then I bet you dimes for dollars that most developers would just dump the
        stuff into a filesytem, and use index files and hashtables.....

        > >Well, I think some of Dave's ideas are poorly designed, but otherwise this
        > >is precisely the model (and rationale) he is following. OTOH, I am not in
        > >favor of specifications designed by fiat, as opposed to by some sort of WG
        > >consensus.
        > >

        > Well sometimes a single person can design a better structure ... where
        > a committee will end up with an aberration of compromises trying to
        > attain everybody's conflicting goals. I believe that RSS 1.0 is just
        > such a aberration. But the 2.0 spec preserves compatibility with
        > thousands of .9x feeds, yet allows for just the additional properties
        > to be added which people are screaming for. It seems to me that the
        > RSS 2.0 spec just reflects where the market is and where it wants to
        > go. It's simple, uncontrived, and preserves the momentum of RSS. It
        > is truly going to be difficult for a committee to come up with a
        > better spec.

        This is quite true, and things like Relax and trex are good examples of
        this. I'm not so convinced of all Dave's notions, however, although I do
        admit that RSS 2.0 is a reasonable way forward along the 0.9x branch.

        In these other cases, however, the contribution became an open standard,
        with a great deal of community contribution / involvement / consensus. Why
        that didn't happen with RSS is unclear to me. Perhaps it was because there
        never was a true originator of RSS to lead things forward, or perhaps it's
        because those going forward had two visions for where it should go. Or
        perhaps it's both of these, and more.

        > >One would hope so.. however, the 'muckiness' of type (1) RSS may make it
        > >hard to transform this into type (2)
        > >
        > Not at all. In fact we can transform any kind of items streaming in
        > channel documents into RDF nodes and arrows streaming in whatever
        > media. Emails, Usenet posts, XHTML marked up web pages, arbitrary XML,
        > RSS .9x, RSS 2.0, RSS 1.0 etc .... all can be included. I bid 2000
        > lines of code (or less) and a simple RDF description for each new kind
        > of format.

        My muckiness referred to the need to add special handling to take care of
        badly formed XML .... experience in other work I've done (albeit with
        HTML) suggests to me that reliable information scraping from badly formed
        input can get messy, and that up to 20% of the code needs to be customized
        for each 'scraped' page/feed. If you've found that scraping into RDF is
        relatively easy and reliable, then I think that's fantastic (and would;ve
        made my life a whole lot easier, if I'd had such tools a few years back
        ;-) )

        Ian
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.