(RSS1 <= RDF) && (RSS1 >= RSS091)
- There has been some commentary (see thread starting at ) that seems
to equate RSS with being nothing but RDF and therefore guilty by
association. You could argue whether RDF is a good thing or not and
that is a favorite topic in many quarters. Independant of how you view
RDF, I think it does a disservice to RSS1 to dismiss it as being
I think it is important to note that RSS1 as proposed (and as we have
been discussing it) treads the delicate path of balancing syntactic
simplicity with semantic power and extensibility. One way this is done
is to focus on a single syntactic format that can be specified using
XML schema mechanisms (DTD, XML Schema, Schematron, etc..). In
addition RSS1 is describeable using RDF schema mechanisms (which
aren't syntax based).
It should be clear, and maybe needs more reinforcement, that there is
a single XML document type for RSS1. The DTD is currently sprinkled
throughout the spec in the "Model:" portion of the element
descriptions. This isn't the syntactic free-for-all of the XML
serialization of RDF.
RSS1 can be interpreted as valid RDF using the one syntactic variation
described in the specs (core and modules). For all practical purposes
you can ignore most aspects of RDF and still get the benefit of nice
structuring and a large amount of conceptual and syntactic backwards
compatability. Many people believe that RDF provides consistent OO
structuring mechanisms and a succinct URL based reference mechanism
(rdf:resource) but YMMV.
If someone perceives that the overhead of RDF in either the conceptual
or syntactic domain is too onerous, they can escape out using
rdf:parseType="Literal" on any second level element subtree. If even
that is too much for someone, they can continue to author in thier
favorite metadata format and there will hopefully be an upconverter
available to slurp thier document into RSS1.
If someone has problems with using namespaces as a modularization
mechanism then they are currently SOL as far as RSS1 is concerned.
That's where we draw the line in the sand :-)
Still, it is sand and not concrete so lets continue to talk about any
ways that people think that the core and module proposals could be
Cordially from Corvallis,