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

Re: [RSS-DEV] Renaming RSS 1.0 as RSS-RDF

Expand Messages
  • Alan Dean
    ... How about RDF-Syndication ? Alan Dean
    Message 1 of 22 , Dec 12, 2006
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      On 12/12/06, rcade <cadenhead@...> wrote:
      > I'm not a member of the RSS-DEV Working Group, but I'd like to urge
      > you to consider renaming RSS 1.0 as RSS-RDF.

      How about "RDF-Syndication"?

      Alan Dean
    • rcade
      ... I was thinking more along the lines of RSS for the Resource Description Framework (RSS-RDF), but I m enough of a dork to appreciate a recursive acronym
      Message 2 of 22 , Dec 12, 2006
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In rss-dev@yahoogroups.com, Jon Hanna <jon@...> wrote:
        > RDF Site Summary-RDF?
        > RDF, so good they named it twice? :)

        I was thinking more along the lines of RSS for the Resource Description
        Framework (RSS-RDF), but I'm enough of a dork to appreciate a
        recursive acronym like GNU's Not UNIX.
      • gary.berosik@thomson.com
        If renaming becomes a reality, I would suggest that the new name should NOT have an embedded dash in the name (e.g., RSSRDF, RSSrdf or rssrdf instead of
        Message 3 of 22 , Dec 12, 2006
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          If renaming becomes a reality, I would suggest that the new name should
          NOT have an embedded dash in the name (e.g., RSSRDF, RSSrdf or rssrdf
          instead of RSS-RDF).

          -Gary Berosik

          ________________________________

          From: rss-dev@yahoogroups.com [mailto:rss-dev@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
          Of rcade
          Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 9:32 PM
          To: rss-dev@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: [RSS-DEV] Renaming RSS 1.0 as RSS-RDF



          The existence of two similar but incompatible formats that call
          themselves RSS is a persistent problem for everyone who supports these
          formats, whether they're involved in RSS 1.0 or RSS 2.0.

          As RSS adoption has grown, RSS 2.0 has built a huge lead on RSS 1.0,
          from the looks of the version stats published at Syndic8. Here's the
          numbers, based on today's page and pages archived by the Internet
          Archive:

          Today: RSS 2.0 76.3%, RSS 1.0 11.3%

          Feb. 2006: RSS 2.0 68.3%, RSS 1.0 17.6%

          March 2005: RSS 2.0 62.1%, RSS 1.0 16.5%

          December 2004: RSS 2.0 49.2%, RSS 1.0 20.6%

          April 2004: RSS 2.0 24.6%, RSS 1.0 47.3%

          We can debate the reasons why, but my guess is that the higher version
          number is as much a factor as anything else. I anticipate that RSS 2.0
          will continue to grow relative to RSS 1.0 because of Microsoft's
          choice to normalize to RSS 2.0 in Windows Vista and MSIE.

          When RSS 1.0 was launched, a vote to change the name to xRSS almost
          had majority support here -- the final result was 11 yes, 11 no:

          http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/rss-dev/surveys?id=368260
          <http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/rss-dev/surveys?id=368260>

          I'm probably getting myself into trouble by asking this, but is there
          any support for renaming RSS 1.0 as RSS-RDF, either through a simple
          name change or a more involved process?

          Although I'm on the RSS Advisory Board, I think that the three
          syndication formats each has a strong selling point:

          - RSS 2.0 is simple, loose and popular

          - Atom is an Internet standard that's more adaptable to uses outside
          site syndication

          - RSS 1.0 builds on RDF

          I'm not a member of the RSS-DEV Working Group, but I'd like to urge
          you to consider renaming RSS 1.0 as RSS-RDF. The name change would
          highlight the format's implementation of RDF and give the rival RSSes
          some breathing room.

          On a personal note, it would also make it considerably easier for me
          to describe your format in various things I write for the RSS board.
          It's tough for me to say anything about RSS 1.0 on our site because of
          the potential for newbie confusion. People assume it's a previous
          iteration of RSS 2.0, not a different format that shares a common
          ancestor.

          I've e-mailed the authors of the RSS 1.0 spec to see if there's an
          opportunity here.






          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Bill Kearney
          ... Ah yeah, right. Let s see, one format comes up with a name, then some jackass hijacks it by playing version number games. Then it becomes the
          Message 4 of 22 , Dec 13, 2006
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            > > Yes you are, and no there's not.
            >
            > I've pinged RSS 1.0's authors along with several of the working group
            > members who joined afterward.
            >
            > RSS 1.0 would do better, marketing wise, under the name RSS for the
            > Resource Definition Framework (RSS-RDF).

            Ah yeah, right. Let's see, one format comes up with a name, then some
            jackass hijacks it by playing version number games. Then it becomes the
            originator's responsibility to change their name? No way.

            You, of all people, know better than to play this game.
          • rcade
            ... I m not suggesting that the RSS-DEV Working Group is obligated to change the name of RSS 1.0 because of confusion with RSS 2.0. I m suggesting that RSS 1.0
            Message 5 of 22 , Dec 13, 2006
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In rss-dev@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Kearney" <ml_yahoo@...> wrote:
              > Ah yeah, right. Let's see, one format comes up with a name, then some
              > jackass hijacks it by playing version number games. Then it becomes
              > the originator's responsibility to change their name? No way.

              I'm not suggesting that the RSS-DEV Working Group is obligated to
              change the name of RSS 1.0 because of confusion with RSS 2.0.

              I'm suggesting that RSS 1.0 would benefit from the name change,
              because it's getting overlooked in confusion with RSS 2.0.

              Your working group's in a position to rename RSS 1.0 because you own
              the copyright to the specification and have a respected, six-year-old
              public process for making changes to it.

              The advisory board's in no position to rename RSS 2.0. If we did, I'm
              certain it would be treated by the public as a third branch of RSS.

              You've followed the board's work this year. We've promoted Atom and
              RSS 1.0. Every page of our site links to yours.

              The version number fight was unfortunate, but I feel like this is a
              win-win solution. Recasting RDF Site Summary (RSS) as RSS for the
              Resource Description Framework (RSS-RDF) is like Dave Winer's decision
              to start calling RSS 0.9x/2.0 Really Simple Syndication. The name
              helps sell the public on the format.

              If you adopted the name RSS for the Resource Description Framework,
              RSS 1.0 could still call itself RSS *and* gain the more specific name
              RSS-RDF. You're already the No. 1 result for that term in Google:

              http://masl.to/?B48021D5E

              Where's the downside here?
            • rcade
              ... I have a longer reply in Yahoo Groups limbo. In case it doesn t make it, here s the short version: The RSS-DEV Working Group has no responsibility to
              Message 6 of 22 , Dec 13, 2006
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In rss-dev@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Kearney" <ml_yahoo@...> wrote:
                > Ah yeah, right. Let's see, one format comes up with a name, then some
                > jackass hijacks it by playing version number games. Then it becomes
                > the originator's responsibility to change their name? No way.

                I have a longer reply in Yahoo Groups limbo. In case it doesn't make
                it, here's the short version:

                The RSS-DEV Working Group has no responsibility to change RSS 1.0's
                name because of confusion with RSS 2.0. I think a name change would
                enable RSS 1.0 to reach a bigger audience and clear up the
                version-related confusion in RSS.

                Calling it RSS for the Resource Description Framework (RSS-RDF) lets
                you still descrive the format as RSS while gaining a more specific
                name that capitalizes on the association with RDF.
              • Eric van der Vlist
                Hi, Le mardi 12 décembre 2006 à 03:32 +0000, rcade a écrit : ... As far as I remember, this poll reflects the mixed feelings that we had about changing our
                Message 7 of 22 , Dec 16, 2006
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  Hi,

                  Le mardi 12 d�cembre 2006 � 03:32 +0000, rcade a �crit :

                  .../...
                  >
                  > When RSS 1.0 was launched, a vote to change the name to xRSS almost
                  > had majority support here -- the final result was 11 yes, 11 no:
                  >
                  > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/rss-dev/surveys?id=368260
                  >
                  > I'm probably getting myself into trouble by asking this, but is there
                  > any support for renaming RSS 1.0 as RSS-RDF, either through a simple
                  > name change or a more involved process?

                  As far as I remember, this poll reflects the mixed feelings that we had
                  about changing our name and what did make the difference is that we had,
                  among the group, some of the original authors of RSS 0.9 who said they
                  cared about keeping that name.

                  Their point was that RSS 1.0 was carrying more of the original
                  motivations and design principles of RSS than the other branch and
                  AFAIK, this is still true.

                  I can see you point and think your suggestion should be considered if we
                  ever publish a new version of RSS 1.0 but I don't see how we could
                  justify changing the name of a spec that hasn't changed.

                  What about asking to Tim Berners-Lee if he wouldn't mind changing the
                  name "Web" (as in "Web 1.0") because it's causing confusions with Web
                  2.0 :) ?

                  Eric
                  --
                  GPG-PGP: 2A528005
                  Lisez-moi sur XMLfr.
                  http://xmlfr.org/index/person/eric+van+der+vlist/
                  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Eric van der Vlist http://xmlfr.org http://dyomedea.com
                  (ISO) RELAX NG ISBN:0-596-00421-4 http://oreilly.com/catalog/relax
                  (W3C) XML Schema ISBN:0-596-00252-1 http://oreilly.com/catalog/xmlschema
                  ------------------------------------------------------------------------


                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • rcade
                  ... Given the response to the RSS 1.1 proposal here when it was pitched in January 2005, it appears that a successive version of RSS 1.0 is highly unlikely. I
                  Message 8 of 22 , Dec 18, 2006
                  View Source
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In rss-dev@yahoogroups.com, Eric van der Vlist <vdv@...> wrote:
                    > I can see you point and think your suggestion should be considered
                    > if we ever publish a new version of RSS 1.0 but I don't see how we
                    > could justify changing the name of a spec that hasn't changed.

                    Given the response to the RSS 1.1 proposal here when it was pitched in
                    January 2005, it appears that a successive version of RSS 1.0 is
                    highly unlikely.

                    I e-mailed almost all of the RSS 1.0 authors and current working group
                    members to inform them of my proposal. I also reached out for the
                    joint RSS MIME type proposal earlier this year.

                    This working group is in pretty deep hibernation. I'd be surprised if
                    anyone could get a vote sparked on any proposal from here on out.
                  • Eric van der Vlist
                    ... A lot of them have changed their email addresses. Have you got more recent addresses than those on the spec? ... There is still hope: you ve succeeded to
                    Message 9 of 22 , Dec 18, 2006
                    View Source
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Le lundi 18 d�cembre 2006 � 15:47 +0000, rcade a �crit :
                      > --- In rss-dev@yahoogroups.com, Eric van der Vlist <vdv@...> wrote:
                      > > I can see you point and think your suggestion should be considered
                      > > if we ever publish a new version of RSS 1.0 but I don't see how we
                      > > could justify changing the name of a spec that hasn't changed.
                      >
                      > Given the response to the RSS 1.1 proposal here when it was pitched in
                      > January 2005, it appears that a successive version of RSS 1.0 is
                      > highly unlikely.
                      >
                      > I e-mailed almost all of the RSS 1.0 authors

                      A lot of them have changed their email addresses. Have you got more
                      recent addresses than those on the spec?

                      > and current working group
                      > members to inform them of my proposal. I also reached out for the
                      > joint RSS MIME type proposal earlier this year.
                      >
                      > This working group is in pretty deep hibernation.

                      There is still hope: you've succeeded to waken one of the
                      authors :) ...

                      > I'd be surprised if
                      > anyone could get a vote sparked on any proposal from here on out.

                      You're probably right but then there is no way we can change its name!

                      Eric

                      >
                      --
                      GPG-PGP: 2A528005
                      Carnet web :
                      http://eric.van-der-vlist.com/blog?t=category&a=Fran%C3%A7ais
                      ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Eric van der Vlist http://xmlfr.org http://dyomedea.com
                      (ISO) RELAX NG ISBN:0-596-00421-4 http://oreilly.com/catalog/relax
                      (W3C) XML Schema ISBN:0-596-00252-1 http://oreilly.com/catalog/xmlschema
                      ------------------------------------------------------------------------


                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • Bill Kearney
                      That *you re* not getting traction doesn t equate with much. You re pushing an agenda that isn t in keeping with what the effort thus far has desired. An
                      Message 10 of 22 , Dec 18, 2006
                      View Source
                      • 0 Attachment
                        That *you're* not getting traction doesn't equate with much.

                        You're pushing an agenda that isn't in keeping with what the effort thus far
                        has desired. An agenda that, no matter how much spin or clever acronyms are
                        tried, isn't what the group here espouses. It's been a tiring process
                        dealing with the half-thruths, abuses and outright lies perperated under the
                        guise of "improving" RSS. It's no wonder the participants are loathe to
                        engage your proposal.

                        -Bill Kearney
                        Syndic8.com

                        ----- Original Message -----

                        > --- In rss-dev@yahoogroups.com, Eric van der Vlist <vdv@...> wrote:
                        > > I can see you point and think your suggestion should be considered
                        > > if we ever publish a new version of RSS 1.0 but I don't see how we
                        > > could justify changing the name of a spec that hasn't changed.
                        >
                        > Given the response to the RSS 1.1 proposal here when it was pitched in
                        > January 2005, it appears that a successive version of RSS 1.0 is
                        > highly unlikely.
                        >
                        > I e-mailed almost all of the RSS 1.0 authors and current working group
                        > members to inform them of my proposal. I also reached out for the
                        > joint RSS MIME type proposal earlier this year.
                        >
                        > This working group is in pretty deep hibernation. I'd be surprised if
                        > anyone could get a vote sparked on any proposal from here on out.
                      • rcade
                        ... We (you, me, Jon Hanna and Randy Charles Morin) didn t get much traction with the joint RSS MIME type proposal here either. It also seemed like the RSS 1.1
                        Message 11 of 22 , Dec 18, 2006
                        View Source
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- In rss-dev@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Kearney" <ml_yahoo@...> wrote:
                          > That *you're* not getting traction doesn't equate with much.

                          We (you, me, Jon Hanna and Randy Charles Morin) didn't get much
                          traction with the joint RSS MIME type proposal here either. It also
                          seemed like the RSS 1.1 effort didn't get much traction in early 2005.

                          > You're pushing an agenda that isn't in keeping with what the effort
                          > thus far has desired. An agenda that, no matter how much spin or
                          > clever acronyms are tried, isn't what the group here espouses. It's
                          > been a tiring process dealing with the half-thruths, abuses and
                          > outright lies perperated under the guise of "improving" RSS. It's no
                          > wonder the participants are loathe to engage your proposal.

                          I don't know who you're referring to in the second-to-last sentence,
                          but if it's me, some specifics would be helpful.

                          I'm not discounting the possibility that my idea's so bad that few
                          people on the working group will respond to it, even in opposition.
                          But I think it's more likely the group isn't interested in working on
                          RSS 1.0 any more.

                          I don't mean that to sound like a rebuke, but as an interested
                          outsider who has come to the working group twice in the past year, I'm
                          just explaining why I'm unlikely to come back with a third request in
                          the future.
                        • rcade
                          ... I went looking for more recent addresses, and was successful for all but a few authors. There s only one I didn t contact intentionally, because I ran into
                          Message 12 of 22 , Dec 18, 2006
                          View Source
                          • 0 Attachment
                            --- In rss-dev@yahoogroups.com, Eric van der Vlist <vdv@...> wrote:
                            > A lot of them have changed their email addresses. Have you got more
                            > recent addresses than those on the spec?

                            I went looking for more recent addresses, and was successful for all
                            but a few authors. There's only one I didn't contact intentionally,
                            because I ran into him on another mailing list a few months ago and he
                            indicated he had intentionally gotten away from all matters related to
                            RSS.

                            Incidentally, I also heard that Atom appears to be gaining audience
                            share at expense of the RSSes, but I haven't found hard numbers yet.
                          • Bill Kearney
                            ... I m not sure it s worth rehashing again. ... Bingo. ... I don t share that assumption. ... So that s, what, a threat? Gee, how unlike the 2.0 hijacking
                            Message 13 of 22 , Dec 18, 2006
                            View Source
                            • 0 Attachment
                              > > You're pushing an agenda that isn't in keeping with what the effort
                              > > thus far has desired. An agenda that, no matter how much spin or
                              > > clever acronyms are tried, isn't what the group here espouses. It's
                              > > been a tiring process dealing with the half-thruths, abuses and
                              > > outright lies perperated under the guise of "improving" RSS. It's no
                              > > wonder the participants are loathe to engage your proposal.
                              >
                              > I don't know who you're referring to in the second-to-last sentence,
                              > but if it's me, some specifics would be helpful.

                              I'm not sure it's worth rehashing again.

                              > I'm not discounting the possibility that my idea's so bad that few
                              > people on the working group will respond to it, even in opposition.

                              Bingo.

                              > But I think it's more likely the group isn't interested in working on
                              > RSS 1.0 any more.

                              I don't share that assumption.

                              > I don't mean that to sound like a rebuke, but as an interested
                              > outsider who has come to the working group twice in the past year, I'm
                              > just explaining why I'm unlikely to come back with a third request in
                              > the future.

                              So that's, what, a threat? Gee, how unlike the 2.0 hijacking effort!
                              Listen to us or we'll go do our own thing. Hmmm, and you wonder why there's
                              silence.

                              Frankly the version whole number jumping game Winer pulled has so
                              sufficiently polluted the RSS effort that few folks are interested in even
                              touching it. Not many people would be interested in getting fucked over
                              AGAIN. You, of all people, should be keenly aware of how tiring such things
                              can be.

                              Basically, RSS is screwed as a brand name. And it's not this group's fault.
                              This group built the brand only to have a singular asshole and his lackeys
                              follow along with theft of it. Does the fact their stolen property
                              (reaching a bit with the analogy here) has become popular justify robbing
                              the orignal effort of it's name. No reasonable person would think so.

                              As for atom, let's hope the maxim of "good things coming to those who wait"
                              will apply. There's no value in trying to play it's emerging acceptance as
                              some sort of justification for the 1.0 effort to abandon it's use and
                              ownship of the RSS name. That dog just won't hunt.

                              -Bill Kearney
                              Syndic8.com
                            • rcade
                              ... Calling it a threat presumes that withholding my future proposals would be some form of punishment to the working group. As I said, it s just where I m at
                              Message 14 of 22 , Dec 18, 2006
                              View Source
                              • 0 Attachment
                                --- In rss-dev@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Kearney" <ml_yahoo@...> wrote:
                                > So that's, what, a threat? Gee, how unlike the 2.0 hijacking
                                > effort! Listen to us or we'll go do our own thing. Hmmm, and you
                                > wonder why there's silence.

                                Calling it a threat presumes that withholding my future proposals
                                would be some form of punishment to the working group.

                                As I said, it's just where I'm at as one person who has twice brought
                                stuff to the group only to experience an "is this microphone on?" moment.

                                As for the "who owns RSS?" argument, that's a can of worms I've
                                already opened too many times.
                              • Cecelia Hickel
                                To All I am hoping for discussion about RSS 1.0 and extending using Modules and have needed one for some time. However, the focus of this group has been on
                                Message 15 of 22 , Mar 22, 2007
                                View Source
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  To All

                                  I am hoping for discussion about RSS 1.0 and extending using Modules and have needed one for some time. However, the focus of this group has been on other matters. So I decided instead of being pegged right away as a newbie and interrupt development matters, to remain silent and hope for bits of knowledge along the way to help me work through my own development issues. But as a newbie, I fully agree that things are still confusing and I would never try and point any blame on this to anyone. I am just trying to learn all that I can about RDF and in particular extending RDF RSS 1.0.

                                  RSS is almost always associated with News and rightly so. However, RSS 1.0 can be extended for many other purposes and I find this a very good thing. However, I need better understanding and information on how an extended RSS 1.0 is "served" using modules. How do RSS parsers read and treat modules, what is necessary to ensure validations/checks. While I can extend, what about the application? The tools? The official stamp of acceptance for modules and have the "proposed" status now approved. I find that this "proposed staus lead me to believe that the work was being abandoned for new ATOM developments and RSS 2.0. But then I had to learn that they were XML and RDF. So the question was then, what about the approval of all those proposed modules? Was that work dropped from lack of time in the day? The need to grow new members? Or was it always intended to approve these at some point but has not yet happened?

                                  The discussion that took place a couple of months ago sparked some of my own questions. I can see that all sides have good points and I would not wish to change the name but I also make reference to RSS 1.0 as RDF-RSS 1.0 when I write something or discuss it. I use RDF first like others put the "X" in front of everything XML. It is confusing these differences. It has confused me until I finally found some answers oin the matter and as a relatively new user I must say I feel I have had to sort and sift through all the cruft to try and rap my mind around what is true and what isn't true.

                                  I feel all of you have worked very hard and been extremely dedicated. I also know personally what it feels like to have another lay claim on all your hard work and even go as far to feel they are justified. But for the benefit of those who actually need a business success using the RSS 1.0 for successfully because it is RDF, how about formally placing some stamps of approval on the many deserving proposed modules? Hopefully such an act would promote new tool developments for using RSS 1.0.

                                  RSS 1.0 is not dead, it is unchanged, and it is neglected. Modules and RDF are a valuable tool at this time for the Web 2.0 and Semantic web efforts.The freedom to extend RSS 1.0 using RDF is why some attention is needed on approving the modules. An approved specification is important as you all know.

                                  I would interested to know, will my hard work pay off for others if I write a good module for instance. How many others have already decided that RSS 1.0 is deprecated as can be found written as a statment of fact on blogs. There is nothing "official" to their statements, only observations which seem to allude to that conclusion. It is becoming the concensus which means in reality it is losing its market share,a necessary evil for a funded development and successful Internet implementations.

                                  I am suggesting that approving the prosposed modules previously submitted would turn things around, catch things up, and bring new energy to RDF, some newly placed importance and limelight for RSS 1.0 because it is a proven RDF technology, and hopefully new support, new tools, new applications, new articless, maybe new technical documents/resources, etc.. It could be a good time this time around.

                                  Regards to all.
                                  Cecelia

                                  Bill Kearney <ml_yahoo@...> wrote: > > You're pushing an agenda that isn't in keeping with what the effort
                                  > > thus far has desired. An agenda that, no matter how much spin or
                                  > > clever acronyms are tried, isn't what the group here espouses. It's
                                  > > been a tiring process dealing with the half-thruths, abuses and
                                  > > outright lies perperated under the guise of "improving" RSS. It's no
                                  > > wonder the participants are loathe to engage your proposal.
                                  >
                                  > I don't know who you're referring to in the second-to-last sentence,
                                  > but if it's me, some specifics would be helpful.

                                  I'm not sure it's worth rehashing again.

                                  > I'm not discounting the possibility that my idea's so bad that few
                                  > people on the working group will respond to it, even in opposition.

                                  Bingo.

                                  > But I think it's more likely the group isn't interested in working on
                                  > RSS 1.0 any more.

                                  I don't share that assumption.

                                  > I don't mean that to sound like a rebuke, but as an interested
                                  > outsider who has come to the working group twice in the past year, I'm
                                  > just explaining why I'm unlikely to come back with a third request in
                                  > the future.

                                  So that's, what, a threat? Gee, how unlike the 2.0 hijacking effort!
                                  Listen to us or we'll go do our own thing. Hmmm, and you wonder why there's
                                  silence.

                                  Frankly the version whole number jumping game Winer pulled has so
                                  sufficiently polluted the RSS effort that few folks are interested in even
                                  touching it. Not many people would be interested in getting fucked over
                                  AGAIN. You, of all people, should be keenly aware of how tiring such things
                                  can be.

                                  Basically, RSS is screwed as a brand name. And it's not this group's fault.
                                  This group built the brand only to have a singular asshole and his lackeys
                                  follow along with theft of it. Does the fact their stolen property
                                  (reaching a bit with the analogy here) has become popular justify robbing
                                  the orignal effort of it's name. No reasonable person would think so.

                                  As for atom, let's hope the maxim of "good things coming to those who wait"
                                  will apply. There's no value in trying to play it's emerging acceptance as
                                  some sort of justification for the 1.0 effort to abandon it's use and
                                  ownship of the RSS name. That dog just won't hunt.

                                  -Bill Kearney
                                  Syndic8.com




                                  Yahoo! Groups Links






                                  Cecelia Hickel
                                  cjhickel@...

                                  ---------------------------------
                                  It's here! Your new message!
                                  Get new email alerts with the free Yahoo! Toolbar.

                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                • Cecelia Hickel
                                  To All I am hoping for discussion about RSS 1.0 and extending using Modules and have needed one for some time. However, the focus of this group has been on
                                  Message 16 of 22 , Mar 22, 2007
                                  View Source
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    To All

                                    I am hoping for discussion about RSS 1.0 and extending using Modules and have needed one for some time. However, the focus of this group has been on other matters. So I decided instead of being pegged right away as a newbie and interrupt development matters, to remain silent and hope for bits of knowledge along the way to help me work through my own development issues. But as a newbie, I fully agree that things are still confusing and I would never try and point any blame on this to anyone. I am just trying to learn all that I can about RDF and in particular extending RDF RSS 1.0.

                                    RSS is almost always associated with News and rightly so. However, RSS 1.0 can be extended for many other purposes and I find this a very good thing. However, I need better understanding and information on how an extended RSS 1.0 is "served" using modules. How do RSS parsers read and treat modules, what is necessary to ensure validations/checks. While I can extend, what about the application? The tools? The official stamp of acceptance for modules and have the "proposed" status now approved. I find that this "proposed staus lead me to believe that the work was being abandoned for new ATOM developments and RSS 2.0. But then I had to learn that they were XML and RDF. So the question was then, what about the approval of all those proposed modules? Was that work dropped from lack of time in the day? The need to grow new members? Or was it always intended to approve these at some point but has not yet happened?

                                    The discussion that took place a couple of months ago sparked some of my own questions. I can see that all sides have good points and I would not wish to change the name but I also make reference to RSS 1.0 as RDF-RSS 1.0 when I write something or discuss it. I use RDF first like others put the "X" in front of everything XML. It is confusing these differences. It has confused me until I finally found some answers oin the matter and as a relatively new user I must say I feel I have had to sort and sift through all the cruft to try and rap my mind around what is true and what isn't true.

                                    I feel all of you have worked very hard and been extremely dedicated. I also know personally what it feels like to have another lay claim on all your hard work and even go as far to feel they are justified. But for the benefit of those who actually need a business success using the RSS 1.0 for successfully because it is RDF, how about formally placing some stamps of approval on the many deserving proposed modules? Hopefully such an act would promote new tool developments for using RSS 1.0.

                                    RSS 1.0 is not dead, it is unchanged, and it is neglected. Modules and RDF are a valuable tool at this time for the Web 2.0 and Semantic web efforts.The freedom to extend RSS 1.0 using RDF is why some attention is needed on approving the modules. An approved specification is important as you all know.

                                    I would interested to know, will my hard work pay off for others if I write a good module for instance. How many others have already decided that RSS 1.0 is deprecated as can be found written as a statment of fact on blogs. There is nothing "official" to their statements, only observations which seem to allude to that conclusion. It is becoming the concensus which means in reality it is losing its market share,a necessary evil for a funded development and successful Internet implementations.

                                    I am suggesting that approving the prosposed modules previously submitted would turn things around, catch things up, and bring new energy to RDF, some newly placed importance and limelight for RSS 1.0 because it is a proven RDF technology, and hopefully new support, new tools, new applications, new articless, maybe new technical documents/resources, etc.. It could be a good time this time around.

                                    Regards to all.
                                    Cecelia

                                    Bill Kearney <ml_yahoo@...> wrote: > > You're pushing an agenda that isn't in keeping with what the effort
                                    > > thus far has desired. An agenda that, no matter how much spin or
                                    > > clever acronyms are tried, isn't what the group here espouses. It's
                                    > > been a tiring process dealing with the half-thruths, abuses and
                                    > > outright lies perperated under the guise of "improving" RSS. It's no
                                    > > wonder the participants are loathe to engage your proposal.
                                    >
                                    > I don't know who you're referring to in the second-to-last sentence,
                                    > but if it's me, some specifics would be helpful.

                                    I'm not sure it's worth rehashing again.

                                    > I'm not discounting the possibility that my idea's so bad that few
                                    > people on the working group will respond to it, even in opposition.

                                    Bingo.

                                    > But I think it's more likely the group isn't interested in working on
                                    > RSS 1.0 any more.

                                    I don't share that assumption.

                                    > I don't mean that to sound like a rebuke, but as an interested
                                    > outsider who has come to the working group twice in the past year, I'm
                                    > just explaining why I'm unlikely to come back with a third request in
                                    > the future.

                                    So that's, what, a threat? Gee, how unlike the 2.0 hijacking effort!
                                    Listen to us or we'll go do our own thing. Hmmm, and you wonder why there's
                                    silence.

                                    Frankly the version whole number jumping game Winer pulled has so
                                    sufficiently polluted the RSS effort that few folks are interested in even
                                    touching it. Not many people would be interested in getting fucked over
                                    AGAIN. You, of all people, should be keenly aware of how tiring such things
                                    can be.

                                    Basically, RSS is screwed as a brand name. And it's not this group's fault.
                                    This group built the brand only to have a singular asshole and his lackeys
                                    follow along with theft of it. Does the fact their stolen property
                                    (reaching a bit with the analogy here) has become popular justify robbing
                                    the orignal effort of it's name. No reasonable person would think so.

                                    As for atom, let's hope the maxim of "good things coming to those who wait"
                                    will apply. There's no value in trying to play it's emerging acceptance as
                                    some sort of justification for the 1.0 effort to abandon it's use and
                                    ownship of the RSS name. That dog just won't hunt.

                                    -Bill Kearney
                                    Syndic8.com




                                    Yahoo! Groups Links






                                    Cecelia Hickel
                                    cjhickel@...

                                    ---------------------------------
                                    Looking for earth-friendly autos?
                                    Browse Top Cars by "Green Rating" at Yahoo! Autos' Green Center.

                                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  • Jon Hanna
                                    ... Frankly, and while I have every psychological motivation to believe otherwise, I would be pessimistic in this regard. However. Would your module be useful
                                    Message 17 of 22 , Mar 23, 2007
                                    View Source
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Cecelia Hickel wrote:
                                      > I would interested to know, will my hard work pay off for others if
                                      > I write a good module for instance.

                                      Frankly, and while I have every psychological motivation to believe
                                      otherwise, I would be pessimistic in this regard.

                                      However. Would your module be useful in either other RDF efforts or ATOM
                                      as well?

                                      Would it be useful for you at least?

                                      I'm pretty pessimistic about things, but I certainly don't want to
                                      dissuade a fellow hacker from doing good work.
                                    • Cecelia Hickel
                                      To be a little clearer, and certainly not insulting, some years back several modules were being discussed and proposed, some from within your own group. The
                                      Message 18 of 22 , Mar 25, 2007
                                      View Source
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        To be a little clearer, and certainly not insulting, some years back several modules were being discussed and proposed, some from within your own group. The work this group has accomplished since that time apparently took the focus from modules and development/approving them to Atom. There are only so many hours in a day...however, the modules which can be beneficial( and would have perhaps proven timely for adoption) are needing an approval by this group to cultivate wider gain and acceptance for RDF and Web 2.0.

                                        It goes without saying how important this is. So whether I achieve something more useful to the greater RDF deployments or not, at this date and time there is no active practice of submitting a module to this group for review and gaining approval. There is no recent evidence of such work in progress.

                                        Does this keep me from writing something useful for myself? Not really. But would it not be better if developers had a voice with this commitee for their needs and then that in itself was beneficial for RDF and Atom cultivations?

                                        I have been hoping for several years to see RSS 1.0 plus modules become a focus for extending semantic web interoperations and simplifying web services. Now we have SOA developments in full swing and what are the planned developments for RSS 1.0 for SOAs?

                                        Could the RSS-DEV group at least state a position on their intentions for approving proposed modules? Or perhaps shed some light on planned or considered future work for RSS 1.0? Is the work better split off in two groups?(of course all work under the same roof).

                                        Jon Hanna <jon@...> wrote: Cecelia Hickel wrote:
                                        > I would interested to know, will my hard work pay off for others if
                                        > I write a good module for instance.

                                        Frankly, and while I have every psychological motivation to believe
                                        otherwise, I would be pessimistic in this regard.

                                        However. Would your module be useful in either other RDF efforts or ATOM
                                        as well?

                                        Would it be useful for you at least?

                                        I'm pretty pessimistic about things, but I certainly don't want to
                                        dissuade a fellow hacker from doing good work.






                                        Cecelia Hickel
                                        cjhickel@...

                                        ---------------------------------
                                        8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time
                                        with theYahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut.

                                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.