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

Re: Media extensions

Expand Messages
  • Sam Ruby
    ... ... at which point, I would think that it should be painfully obvious to all that that which did seem to work very well without any formal process , isn t
    Message 1 of 25 , Jul 16, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Danny Ayers wrote:
      > On 7/16/05, A. Pagaltzis <pagaltzis@...> wrote:
      >
      >>* James M Snell <jasnell@...> [2005-07-16 20:05]:
      >>
      >>>If the community can drive a viable solution without the
      >>>overhead of a formalized standardization process, it will work
      >>>out best for everyone and the anti-formal-standards crowd will
      >>>have far less to complain about or will at least be able to
      >>>devote more time to bashing atom ;-)
      >
      > Yahoo!'s approach did seem to work very well without any formal
      > process, effectively just a mailing list and editor. But then Apple
      > came along...

      ... at which point, I would think that it should be painfully obvious to
      all that that which "did seem to work very well without any formal
      process", isn't going to work out very well long term.

      While I don't believe that *every* extension needs to the "overhead" of
      a formalized standardization process, I do believe that there is enough
      interest in *this* extension that this particular effort would benefit
      from a wider set of participants.

      Question: can anybody here quantify the "overhead" of the IETF
      standardization process? While I certainly would label some of the last
      few weeks "overhead", everything else I attribute to the impact of
      allowing and enabling a wider set of participation.

      Yes, developing specs up to Atom 0.3 was much easier when Mark, Joe, I,
      and few others could just listen to feedback on mailing lists, blogs,
      and wikis, and do what we thought was best.

      But Atom 1.0 is much better. Much.

      My $0.02.

      - Sam Ruby
    • Marc Canter
      I ll see your $.02 and raise yah a dime $.10 I don t think at any time the notion of overhead or process has kept us say from the IETF - but (to put it
      Message 2 of 25 , Jul 16, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        I'll see your $.02 and raise yah a dime $.10

        I don't think at any time the notion of 'overhead' or 'process' has kept
        'us' say from the IETF - but (to put it mildly) media is a real can of worms
        and there are SO many constituents and potential collaborators - that the
        sheer immensity of the notion has beguiled us.

        As I think I said before - I'm participated in and been part of many
        multimedia standards processes - going back to the original MIDI committee
        in 1983-84, CD-I in the late 80's, The Chinatown Group (which merged with
        the MMC) and then (shutter to even think about it) Kalieda Labs and Bento
        and the whole 'Interactive TV' malaise of the early 90's.

        Much disgust and dismay has been excreted over the tri-forcation of media
        formats (QT, Windows and Real) that I don't have to go into it here. When
        the world of RSS and syndication ignored media - thank God Yahoo did
        something about it.

        Now we're faced with - what's next?

        I'd like to suggest:

        - looking at all the schemas we've created for ourmedia.org
        - thinking about what a Flickr API for audio and video would look
        like
        - how to provide a wide range of solutions (ala Flickr) for RSS, rdf
        AND Atom

        Let's get something up and running and working and uptake happening before
        we worry about standards committees.

        IMHO

        Back to you - Sam
        - marc

        -----Original Message-----
        From: rss-media@yahoogroups.com [mailto:rss-media@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
        Of Sam Ruby
        Sent: Saturday, July 16, 2005 1:40 PM
        To: Danny Ayers
        Cc: atom-syntax@...; rss-media@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [rss-media] Re: Media extensions

        Danny Ayers wrote:
        > On 7/16/05, A. Pagaltzis <pagaltzis@...> wrote:
        >
        >>* James M Snell <jasnell@...> [2005-07-16 20:05]:
        >>
        >>>If the community can drive a viable solution without the
        >>>overhead of a formalized standardization process, it will work
        >>>out best for everyone and the anti-formal-standards crowd will
        >>>have far less to complain about or will at least be able to
        >>>devote more time to bashing atom ;-)
        >
        > Yahoo!'s approach did seem to work very well without any formal
        > process, effectively just a mailing list and editor. But then Apple
        > came along...

        ... at which point, I would think that it should be painfully obvious to
        all that that which "did seem to work very well without any formal
        process", isn't going to work out very well long term.

        While I don't believe that *every* extension needs to the "overhead" of
        a formalized standardization process, I do believe that there is enough
        interest in *this* extension that this particular effort would benefit
        from a wider set of participants.

        Question: can anybody here quantify the "overhead" of the IETF
        standardization process? While I certainly would label some of the last
        few weeks "overhead", everything else I attribute to the impact of
        allowing and enabling a wider set of participation.

        Yes, developing specs up to Atom 0.3 was much easier when Mark, Joe, I,
        and few others could just listen to feedback on mailing lists, blogs,
        and wikis, and do what we thought was best.

        But Atom 1.0 is much better. Much.

        My $0.02.

        - Sam Ruby



        Yahoo! Groups Links
      • Robert Sayre
        ... I hesitate to put a number on it, but our experience included a ghastly amount of debate on field names. If I were setting up a WG for something like Media
        Message 3 of 25 , Jul 16, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          On 7/16/05, Sam Ruby <rubys@...> wrote:
          >
          > Question: can anybody here quantify the "overhead" of the IETF
          > standardization process? While I certainly would label some of the last
          > few weeks "overhead", everything else I attribute to the impact of
          > allowing and enabling a wider set of participation.

          I hesitate to put a number on it, but our experience included a
          ghastly amount of debate on field names. If I were setting up a WG for
          something like Media RSS, I would probably rule debate on field names
          out of order (realizing that people have to pick something to propose
          a *new* feature), and leave field names up to the editors until WG
          last call.

          Robert Sayre
        • Marc Canter
          Sam Ruby poised the question.. ... Robert Sayre answered I hesitate to put a number on it, but our experience included a ghastly amount of debate on field
          Message 4 of 25 , Jul 16, 2005
          • 0 Attachment

            Sam Ruby poised the question….


            > Question: can anybody here quantify the "overhead" of the IETF
            > standardization process?  While I certainly would label some of the last
            > few weeks "overhead", everything else I attribute to the impact of
            > allowing and enabling a wider set of participation.

            Robert Sayre answered


            I hesitate to put a number on it, but our experience included a
            ghastly amount of debate on field names. If I were setting up a WG for
            something like Media RSS, I would probably rule debate on field names
            out of order (realizing that people have to pick something to propose
            a *new* feature), and leave field names up to the editors until WG
            last call.

             



            Marc adds to it…………

             

            This is just one good example of committee-itis.  Making standards has to first and foremost be about making products.  There’s no other way of putting it.

             

            We need to get the ourmedia schemas into feeds.

             

            Yahoo needed to get video into their search engine.

             

            Flickr wanted folks to have access to their photos.

             

            The world needed a subscription format tied to a blogging API.

             

            That’s why these things happen.  Not for the ‘standards’ sake.

             

            Like I’ve said – now three times – once we have something that’s working, that has uptake, that has consensus – THEN it’s time for a standards committee – but not before then.

             

            IMHO.

          • Lucas Gonze
            About a formal standards process, as far as I can tell the only two Bigs involved right now are Apple and Yahoo. Is there anybody else? We can assume that Y!
            Message 5 of 25 , Jul 16, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              About a formal standards process, as far as I can tell the only two Bigs
              involved right now are Apple and Yahoo. Is there anybody else?

              We can assume that Y! would be pretty friendly. It's not a given that
              they would participate, but it's plausible. Apple, though, is a
              different story. Is there any reason to think that they would take it
              seriously?
            • Marc Canter
              Nope - ain t gonan happen or if it did - they d send their standards police and play that game and stretch it out - what 2-3 years? _____ From:
              Message 6 of 25 , Jul 16, 2005
              • 0 Attachment

                Nope – ain’t gonan happen or if it did – they’d send their ‘standards police’ and play that game and stretch it out – what 2-3 years?

                 


                From: rss-media@yahoogroups.com [mailto:rss-media@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Lucas Gonze
                Sent: Saturday, July 16, 2005 6:31 PM
                To: rss-media@yahoogroups.com
                Cc: Sam Ruby; Danny Ayers; atom-syntax@...
                Subject: Re: [rss-media] Re: Media extensions

                 

                About a formal standards process, as far as I can tell the only two Bigs
                involved right now are Apple and Yahoo.  Is there anybody else?

                We can assume that Y! would be pretty friendly.  It's not a given that
                they would participate, but it's plausible.  Apple, though, is a
                different story.  Is there any reason to think that they would take it
                seriously?


              • Sam Ruby
                ... I fold. ... IMHO: * Karl makes the overlap with Apple s efforts in this area quite clear: http://www.w3.org/2005/07/media-and-rss * I ve never seen an RSS
                Message 7 of 25 , Jul 17, 2005
                • 0 Attachment
                  Marc Canter wrote:
                  > I'll see your $.02 and raise yah a dime $.10

                  I fold.

                  > Let's get something up and running and working and uptake happening before
                  > we worry about standards committees.
                  >
                  > IMHO
                  >
                  > Back to you - Sam

                  IMHO:

                  * Karl makes the overlap with Apple's efforts in this area quite clear:

                  http://www.w3.org/2005/07/media-and-rss

                  * I've never seen an RSS extension get so rapidly adopted as Apple's
                  podcasting specifications. All this despite criticism by Dave Winer,
                  Edd Dumbill, Mark Pilgrim, myself, and numerous others.

                  Approaching a recognized standards body may or may not help to address
                  this (and I don't for a minute doubt that it is insufficient by itself),
                  but if you wish to measure success in terms of uptake then it behooves
                  you to take a look at the first and second order derivatives of the
                  uptake of the Y! and Apple efforts, and reassess your strategies
                  accordingly.

                  - Sam Ruby
                • Robert Sayre
                  ... Apple is a pretty good Web standards citizen. Here s an example: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2005JulSep/0063.html ... I would ask the
                  Message 8 of 25 , Jul 17, 2005
                  • 0 Attachment
                    On 7/16/05, Lucas Gonze <lgonze@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > About a formal standards process, as far as I can tell the only two Bigs
                    > involved right now are Apple and Yahoo. Is there anybody else?
                    >
                    > We can assume that Y! would be pretty friendly. It's not a given that
                    > they would participate, but it's plausible. Apple, though, is a
                    > different story.

                    Apple is a pretty good Web standards citizen. Here's an example:
                    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2005JulSep/0063.html

                    > Is there any reason to think that they would take it seriously?

                    I would ask the opposite question. Why should they take yet another
                    "nonono, use *my* fork" conversation seriously? The last one didn't go
                    real well.

                    It's important to realize that choosing not to standardize carries a
                    risk as well. For example, an Evil Cadre of Large Corporations and
                    Their Pawns could standardize something similar. If something like
                    that happens, your evangelism effort will probably take more time and
                    energy than a standards organization would. The risk of someone else
                    doing something similar in a voting-based standards organization is
                    pretty high, and the damage/good of such an effort is unkown. Each
                    standards organization's process is a known quantity. I would jump
                    first if I were you.

                    Robert Sayre
                  • Marc Canter
                    Yes - well if we all had Steve Jobs charm we could sell digital puppets to children - too. This is the battle of good versus evil - as far as I m concerned.
                    Message 9 of 25 , Jul 17, 2005
                    • 0 Attachment

                      Yes - well if we all had Steve Jobs charm we could sell digital puppets to children – too.

                       

                      This is the battle of good versus evil – as far as I’m concerned.

                       

                      Sam clearly is on our side.

                       

                      Steve – that could be debated.

                       

                      I haven’t bought an Apple product since 1997 – since they fucked me for the umpteenth time.  You kick somebody enough and they get a clue.  The rest of the world just hasn’t figured that out yet.

                       

                      Meanwhile I’m lustfully thinking about one of those Lenovo IBM Thinkpad Tablets.

                       

                      J

                       

                      I wish I had a better answer.

                       

                      The ourmedia group could serve as a halfway point – bringing some structure to the madness – while refusing to let anyone:

                      -          wear a suit

                      -          act like a standards body or person

                      -          constrain the conversation (except where it needs to be constrained – of course)

                       

                      All kidding aside – maybe Yahoo CAN provide us something – anything – to keep the momentum moving forward.  Clearly Apple’s approach is WRONG!

                       

                      Can we all agree upon THAT?

                       

                      - marc

                       


                      From: rss-media@yahoogroups.com [mailto:rss-media@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Sam Ruby
                      Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2005 7:46 AM
                      To: rss-media@yahoogroups.com
                      Subject: Re: [rss-media] Re: Media extensions

                       

                      Marc Canter wrote:
                      > I'll see your $.02 and raise yah a dime $.10

                      I fold.

                      > Let's get something up and running and working and uptake happening before
                      > we worry about standards committees.
                      >
                      > IMHO
                      >
                      > Back to you - Sam

                      IMHO:

                        * Karl makes the overlap with Apple's efforts in this area quite clear:

                          http://www.w3.org/2005/07/media-and-rss

                        * I've never seen an RSS extension get so rapidly adopted as Apple's
                          podcasting specifications.  All this despite criticism by Dave Winer,
                          Edd Dumbill, Mark Pilgrim, myself, and numerous others.

                      Approaching a recognized standards body may or may not help to address
                      this (and I don't for a minute doubt that it is insufficient by itself),
                      but if you wish to measure success in terms of uptake then it behooves
                      you to take a look at the first and second order derivatives of the
                      uptake of the Y! and Apple efforts, and reassess your strategies
                      accordingly.

                      - Sam Ruby

                    • Patrick Schmitz
                      Hi Folks - I am new to the group, but read this recent discussion with interest. I ll ante in with my $0.02: Disclaimer: I am a researcher at the new Yahoo
                      Message 10 of 25 , Jul 17, 2005
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Hi Folks -
                         
                        I am new to the group, but read this recent discussion with interest.  I'll ante in with my $0.02:
                         
                        Disclaimer: I am a researcher at the new Yahoo Research Lab in Berkeley. You can read the rest of my sordid history (only slightly out of date) at my home page (linked from my profile).
                         
                        Standards committees can be very rewarding, and can also be a royal PITA. I sat on a number of WGs at the W3C, and generally had a pretty good experience. It is worth noting some conventional wisdom about standards:
                         
                        1) If a company dominates, or think they can soon dominate a given market, then from their perspective a related standard is a really bad thing because it just enables competition. Keep this in mind when considering who you invite to the table, and what you can reasonably expect them to contribute during and after the committee work. I am not naming names, but the recent msgs that do are probably not off-target.
                         
                        2) If a company competes bitterly in a market with several rivals, but the market is still immature or is stalled because of the infighting, it is often in the interest of companies to participate in a standard to bootstrap the market or bring some stability to it. This can be a motivator for parties that might otherwise seem like unlikely participants.
                         
                        I agree with Marc that what is most important initially is a clear understanding within the community of what you want to build and why. At the same time, many of us engineers have a tendency to approach a problem that is new to us with the attitude: "we're smart, and how hard can this be?". This has led all too often to lousy hack solutions that garner early enthusiasm, but then become ever greater hacks as users and their needs mature and become more sophisticated (or conversely, that hinder progress because they cannot accommodate complexity or scale). I personally am getting tired of seeing some of this crap out there.
                         
                        I encourage the community to engage folks with relevant standards experience and to do some homework before proposing something too simplistic. I am not proposing that we develop the end-all-be-all solution up front; rather that we adhere to the principle of making simple things simple, and complex things possible.
                         
                        Since this is an emerging area of applications, we may not initially be able to define all the complex use-cases that will realistically be of interest to users. However, we should consider a framework that can reasonably accommodate complexity (even if requisite support is deferred until a V2 of the standard).
                         
                        I think that a good deal can be done informally, and encourage that. I also think that by being aware of and where appropriate, leveraging existing relevant standards and good practice, it will be much easier to pursue formal standardization when that makes sense.
                         
                        I look forward to the discussion -
                         
                        Patrick
                      • Robert Sayre
                        ... Media RSS already has an effective editor who is also a good listener: Yahoo s David Hall. If the Media RSS folks (or some other constituency who ve done
                        Message 11 of 25 , Jul 17, 2005
                        • 0 Attachment
                          On 7/17/05, Paul Hoffman <phoffman@...> wrote:
                          > <co-chair-hat position='on'>I would only entertain a charter
                          > extension if we had a volunteer to be the document author, and
                          > expressed interest from developers. This will certainly be
                          > contentious.</co-chair-hat>
                          >
                          > Alternatively, someone can write an individual Internet Draft that is
                          > just discussed on this list, with no rules about how changes are made
                          > to the draft. This is definitely lighter-weight, but much more likely
                          > to bring bad feelings and lack of consensus unless the draft authors
                          > are really good at listening. Still, it is easy to do.

                          Media RSS already has an effective editor who is also a good listener:
                          Yahoo's David Hall. If the Media RSS folks (or some other constituency
                          who've done their homework) want to use this WG as their venue, that
                          would be great. If not, I would be opposed to modifying the charter.
                          That seems like self-perpetuating bureaucracy.

                          Another way of putting it would be that, absent new participants, I
                          favor completing the autodiscovery and protocol drafts and closing the
                          WG.

                          Robert Sayre
                        • Marc Canter
                          Here s what I propose. mRSS 1.0 is what it is. We help Yahoo transition the spec as follows: - take a look at all the meta-data we re collecting at
                          Message 12 of 25 , Jul 17, 2005
                          • 0 Attachment

                            Here’s what I propose.

                             

                            mRSS 1.0 is what it is.

                             

                            We help Yahoo transition the spec as follows:

                            -          take a look at all the meta-data we’re collecting at http://ourmedia.org

                            -          if anything is missing or you disagree with, give us (me) a holler

                            -          if not (and assuming we’re occluding ALL this meta-data from people who don’t care about it or who will find it daunting)

                            -          we then add this meta-data to the mRSS ‘standard’

                            -          but since we don’t want to ONLY commit to RSS, I say we make sure rdf and Atom versions of mRSS find a life.

                            -          Now while we’re at it, since Yahoo bought Flickr

                            -          I propose that APIs for audio and video get added to the mix.

                            -          And all THAT is turned into mRSS – too (or whatever it’s called at that time)

                            -          And once this all works with XML-RPC, SOAP and REST (just like the rest of Flickr)

                            -          Yahoo ‘gives away’ mRSS (or whatever it’s called) – to some objective 3rd party non-profit (like the Berkman or CommerceNet)

                            -          And THEN we can submit everything to the IETF

                            -          Make sense?

                             

                            - marc canter

                             


                            From: rss-media@yahoogroups.com [mailto:rss-media@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Robert Sayre
                            Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2005 5:10 PM
                            To: Paul Hoffman
                            Cc: atom-syntax@...; rss-media@yahoogroups.com
                            Subject: [rss-media] Re: Media extensions

                             

                            On 7/17/05, Paul Hoffman <phoffman@...> wrote:
                            > <co-chair-hat position='on'>I would only entertain a charter
                            > extension if we had a volunteer to be the document author, and
                            > expressed interest from developers. This will certainly be
                            > contentious.</co-chair-hat>
                            >
                            > Alternatively, someone can write an individual Internet Draft that is
                            > just discussed on this list, with no rules about how changes are made
                            > to the draft. This is definitely lighter-weight, but much more likely
                            > to bring bad feelings and lack of consensus unless the draft authors
                            > are really good at listening. Still, it is easy to do.

                            Media RSS already has an effective editor who is also a good listener:
                            Yahoo's David Hall. If the Media RSS folks (or some other constituency
                            who've done their homework) want to use this WG as their venue, that
                            would be great. If not, I would be opposed to modifying the charter.
                            That seems like self-perpetuating bureaucracy.

                            Another way of putting it would be that, absent new participants, I
                            favor completing the autodiscovery and protocol drafts and closing the
                            WG.

                            Robert Sayre

                          • robertsayre2000
                            ... Yep. You don t need to keep hacking on it in a Yahoo Group. Get *lots* more deployment experience. Skipping to the end... ... To be perfectly frank, that
                            Message 13 of 25 , Jul 17, 2005
                            • 0 Attachment
                              --- In rss-media@yahoogroups.com, "Marc Canter" <marc@b...> wrote:
                              > Here's what I propose.
                              >
                              > mRSS 1.0 is what it is.

                              Yep. You don't need to keep hacking on it in a Yahoo Group. Get *lots*
                              more deployment experience.

                              Skipping to the end...

                              >
                              > - Make sense?

                              To be perfectly frank, that sounds like a plan to indefinitely
                              postpone taking the specification to a recognized standards body. If
                              you actually do want to standardize mRSS in the IETF, I suggest acting
                              on all of the other steps you listed during the IETF process.
                              Otherwise, you're going to double your time-to-standard--it's unlikely
                              they'll rubberstamp whatever you've come up with at the end of those
                              ten steps.

                              If you're more interested in ad-hoc activity and/or changing the
                              definition of the word 'standard', I think that's an activity that's
                              demonstrably unlikely to be fruitful. It will generate lots of
                              melodrama, however.

                              good luck,

                              Robert Sayre
                            • Danny Ayers
                              ... +1 I suspect the accumulated WG fatigue means probably the only viable route would be with the help of new blood. That isn t to suggest a completely new WG
                              Message 14 of 25 , Jul 18, 2005
                              • 0 Attachment
                                On 7/18/05, Robert Sayre <sayrer@...> wrote:

                                > Media RSS already has an effective editor who is also a good listener:
                                > Yahoo's David Hall. If the Media RSS folks (or some other constituency
                                > who've done their homework) want to use this WG as their venue, that
                                > would be great. If not, I would be opposed to modifying the charter.
                                > That seems like self-perpetuating bureaucracy.
                                >
                                > Another way of putting it would be that, absent new participants, I
                                > favor completing the autodiscovery and protocol drafts and closing the
                                > WG.

                                +1

                                I suspect the accumulated WG fatigue means probably the only viable
                                route would be with the help of new blood. That isn't to suggest a
                                completely new WG might not be appropriate, I honestly don't know.

                                It might be that all is needed that the model described in Y!mRSS be
                                abstracted from the RSS 2.0 specifics, then re-expressed as Atom &
                                RDF. Given that Atom (and RDF) both have fairly clean extension
                                mechanisms, it shouldn't be necessary to cover every edge case in the
                                'primary' media extension, just get the core down.

                                Cheers,
                                Danny.


                                --

                                http://dannyayers.com
                              • Gary
                                Sounds like the right direction. It s funny though; any mention of ATOM brings back such bad memories. It came out of such an interest group mentality - so
                                Message 15 of 25 , Jul 18, 2005
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Sounds like the right direction.

                                  It's funny though; any mention of ATOM brings back such bad
                                  memories. It came out of such an "interest group" mentality - so
                                  contradictory to we the media.

                                  - Gary



                                  --- In rss-media@yahoogroups.com, "Marc Canter" <marc@b...> wrote:
                                  > Here's what I propose.
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > mRSS 1.0 is what it is.
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > We help Yahoo transition the spec as follows:
                                  >
                                  > - take a look at all the meta-data we're collecting at
                                  > http://ourmedia.org <http://ourmedia.org/>
                                  >
                                  > - if anything is missing or you disagree with, give us
                                  (me) a
                                  > holler
                                  >
                                  > - if not (and assuming we're occluding ALL this meta-data
                                  from
                                  > people who don't care about it or who will find it daunting)
                                  >
                                  > - we then add this meta-data to the mRSS 'standard'
                                  >
                                  > - but since we don't want to ONLY commit to RSS, I say we
                                  make sure
                                  > rdf and Atom versions of mRSS find a life.
                                  >
                                  > - Now while we're at it, since Yahoo bought Flickr
                                  >
                                  > - I propose that APIs for audio and video get added to the
                                  mix.
                                  >
                                  > - And all THAT is turned into mRSS - too (or whatever it's
                                  called
                                  > at that time)
                                  >
                                  > - And once this all works with XML-RPC, SOAP and REST
                                  (just like
                                  > the rest of Flickr)
                                  >
                                  > - Yahoo 'gives away' mRSS (or whatever it's called) - to
                                  some
                                  > objective 3rd party non-profit (like the Berkman or CommerceNet)
                                  >
                                  > - And THEN we can submit everything to the IETF
                                  >
                                  > - Make sense?
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > - marc canter
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > _____
                                  >
                                  > From: rss-media@yahoogroups.com [mailto:rss-media@yahoogroups.com]
                                  On Behalf
                                  > Of Robert Sayre
                                  > Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2005 5:10 PM
                                  > To: Paul Hoffman
                                  > Cc: atom-syntax@i...; rss-media@yahoogroups.com
                                  > Subject: [rss-media] Re: Media extensions
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > On 7/17/05, Paul Hoffman <phoffman@i...> wrote:
                                  > > <co-chair-hat position='on'>I would only entertain a charter
                                  > > extension if we had a volunteer to be the document author, and
                                  > > expressed interest from developers. This will certainly be
                                  > > contentious.</co-chair-hat>
                                  > >
                                  > > Alternatively, someone can write an individual Internet Draft
                                  that is
                                  > > just discussed on this list, with no rules about how changes are
                                  made
                                  > > to the draft. This is definitely lighter-weight, but much more
                                  likely
                                  > > to bring bad feelings and lack of consensus unless the draft
                                  authors
                                  > > are really good at listening. Still, it is easy to do.
                                  >
                                  > Media RSS already has an effective editor who is also a good
                                  listener:
                                  > Yahoo's David Hall. If the Media RSS folks (or some other
                                  constituency
                                  > who've done their homework) want to use this WG as their venue, that
                                  > would be great. If not, I would be opposed to modifying the charter.
                                  > That seems like self-perpetuating bureaucracy.
                                  >
                                  > Another way of putting it would be that, absent new participants, I
                                  > favor completing the autodiscovery and protocol drafts and closing
                                  the
                                  > WG.
                                  >
                                  > Robert Sayre
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > _____
                                  >
                                  > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > * Visit your group "rss-media
                                  > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rss-media> " on the web.
                                  >
                                  > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                  > rss-media-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                                  > <mailto:rss-media-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
                                  >
                                  > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
                                  > <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of Service.
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > _____
                                • Marc Canter
                                  OK - so stage #1 - what Danny just said.. It might be that all is needed that the model described in Y!mRSS be abstracted from the RSS 2.0 specifics, then
                                  Message 16 of 25 , Jul 18, 2005
                                  • 0 Attachment

                                    OK – so stage #1 – what Danny just said……

                                     

                                     

                                    It might be that all is needed that the model described in Y!mRSS be
                                    abstracted from the RSS 2.0 specifics, then re-expressed as Atom &
                                    RDF. Given that Atom (and RDF) both have fairly clean extension
                                    mechanisms, it shouldn't be necessary to cover every edge case in the
                                    'primary' media extension, just get the core down.

                                    Cheers,
                                    Danny.

                                     

                                     

                                     

                                    Then stage 2 – would be to extend the meta-data – to include a wider range of uses.  Its very limited right now – but doesn’t have to go as far as what we did in ourmedia.  It just needs more than what’s in there now.

                                     

                                     

                                    Then stage 3 – would happen when Flickr APIs for audio and video appear.  Driven by the revelations and insights from the Flickr community, I’m confidant this will rock.  And besides – Atom si suppose dot bring together schemas and APIs.  And that’s what Media RSS should end up being.

                                     

                                     

                                    IMHO



                                     
                                    --

                                    http://dannyayers.com

                                  • Lucas Gonze
                                    ... Amen. This is the most practical plan so far. It brings in the energy and talent of the mainstream of syndication hackers, and it s a limited project
                                    Message 17 of 25 , Jul 18, 2005
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Danny Ayers wrote:

                                      >It might be that all is needed that the model described in Y!mRSS be
                                      >abstracted from the RSS 2.0 specifics, then re-expressed as Atom &
                                      >RDF. Given that Atom (and RDF) both have fairly clean extension
                                      >mechanisms, it shouldn't be necessary to cover every edge case in the
                                      >'primary' media extension, just get the core down.
                                      >
                                      >
                                      Amen. This is the most practical plan so far. It brings in the energy
                                      and talent of the mainstream of syndication hackers, and it's a limited
                                      project instead of an open-ended one.

                                      - Lucas
                                    • Suzan Foster
                                      On this note i ve updated my attempts to RDFfy the examples from http://search.yahoo.com/mrss, see: http://www.xs4all.nl/~foz/mrss-2.rdf
                                      Message 18 of 25 , Jul 18, 2005
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        On this note i've updated my attempts to RDFfy the examples from http://search.yahoo.com/mrss, see:


                                        All validated against http://www.w3.org/RDF/Validator/

                                        Regards,
                                        Suzan Foster.
                                        -- 
                                        p.s.: mrss-3.xml is missing the dcterms namespace and mrss-5.xml needs updating for the revised <media;category> and <media:credit> elements.

                                        On Jul 18, 2005, at 10:18 PM, Marc Canter wrote:

                                        OK – so stage #1 – what Danny just said……

                                         

                                         

                                        It might be that all is needed that the model described in Y!mRSS be
                                        abstracted from the RSS 2.0 specifics, then re-expressed as Atom &
                                        RDF. Given that Atom (and RDF) both have fairly clean extension
                                        mechanisms, it shouldn't be necessary to cover every edge case in the
                                        'primary' media extension, just get the core down.

                                        Cheers,
                                        Danny.

                                         

                                         

                                         

                                        Then stage 2 – would be to extend the meta-data – to include a wider range of uses.  Its very limited right now – but doesn’t have to go as far as what we did in ourmedia.  It just needs more than what’s in there now.

                                         

                                         

                                        Then stage 3 – would happen when Flickr APIs for audio and video appear.  Driven by the revelations and insights from the Flickr community, I’m confidant this will rock.  And besides – Atom si suppose dot bring together schemas and APIs.  And that’s what Media RSS should end up being.

                                         

                                         

                                        IMHO



                                         
                                        --

                                        http://dannyayers.com



                                        YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS






                                      • Jeremy Zawodny
                                        ... We ve been talking a bit about the future of Media RSS at Yahoo, including long-term standardization, ownership, etc. What we re trying to understand,
                                        Message 19 of 25 , Jul 18, 2005
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Sam Ruby wrote:
                                          >
                                          > ... at which point, I would think that it should be painfully obvious to
                                          > all that that which "did seem to work very well without any formal
                                          > process", isn't going to work out very well long term.
                                          >
                                          > While I don't believe that *every* extension needs to the "overhead" of
                                          > a formalized standardization process, I do believe that there is enough
                                          > interest in *this* extension that this particular effort would benefit
                                          > from a wider set of participants.

                                          We've been talking a bit about the future of Media RSS at Yahoo,
                                          including long-term standardization, ownership, etc.

                                          What we're trying to understand, among other things, are:

                                          (1) the real benefits of going thru the standards process

                                          (2) how long #1 is likely to take

                                          (3) whether we can first give ownership of Media RSS to a neutral 3rd
                                          party before pushing for standardization. The theory is that with it in
                                          neutral hands, it might reduce some of the friction in third party adoption.

                                          Thoughts?

                                          [I've removed atom-syntax from the Cc: list]

                                          Jeremy
                                          --
                                          Jeremy D. Zawodny, <jzawodn@...>
                                          Technical Yahoo - Yahoo Troublemaker
                                          Desk: (408) 349-7878 Cell: (408) 685-5936

                                          My Calendar: http://calendar.yahoo.com/jzawodn
                                        • Marc Canter
                                          whether we can first give ownership of Media RSS to a neutral 3rd party before pushing for standardization. The theory is that with it in neutral hands, it
                                          Message 20 of 25 , Jul 18, 2005
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            whether we can first give ownership of Media RSS to a neutral 3rd
                                            party before pushing for standardization. The theory is that with it in
                                            neutral hands, it might reduce some of the friction in third party adoption.

                                            Thoughts?

                                            [Jeremy]

                                            =================

                                            I vote yes to that. But it has to be a group which is focused on providing
                                            open source infrastructure and who are already in the media game. Say
                                            ourmedia.org.

                                            :-)
                                          • Dan Brickley
                                            ... This is great! Thanks :) Did you happen to see my notes sent to the Atom list on friday, http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/HTML/samples/atom/
                                            Message 21 of 25 , Jul 18, 2005
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              Suzan Foster wrote:

                                              > On this note i've updated my attempts to RDFfy the examples
                                              > from http://search.yahoo.com/mrss, see:
                                              >
                                              > http://www.xs4all.nl/~foz/mrss-2.rdf
                                              > <http://www.xs4all.nl/%7Efoz/mrss-2.rdf>
                                              > http://www.xs4all.nl/~foz/mrss-3.rdf
                                              > <http://www.xs4all.nl/%7Efoz/mrss-3.rdf>
                                              > http://www.xs4all.nl/~foz/mrss-4.rdf
                                              > <http://www.xs4all.nl/%7Efoz/mrss-4.rdf>
                                              > http://www.xs4all.nl/~foz/mrss-5.rdf
                                              > <http://www.xs4all.nl/%7Efoz/mrss-5.rdf>
                                              >
                                              > All validated against http://www.w3.org/RDF/Validator/
                                              >
                                              This is great! Thanks :)

                                              Did you happen to see my notes sent to the Atom list on friday,
                                              http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/HTML/samples/atom/
                                              http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/HTML/samples/atom/notes.html
                                              -> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/HTML/samples/atom/notes.html

                                              It seems that there is a constrained subset of Atom that also parses as
                                              RDF/XML.

                                              If that's the case (the Atom RelaxNG schema didn't complain, at least :)
                                              then your RSS1-friendly RDF version of MRSS should just plug
                                              right in there.

                                              Atom in its full glory doesn't parse as RDF (we'd need to write an XSLT to
                                              do the conversion), and the subset that does is pretty restrictive. But
                                              I think
                                              worth investigating...

                                              Dan

                                              ps. for a richer representation of "Adult?" than the current boolean,
                                              the new
                                              PICS-derrived work from ICRA might be worth looking at. See
                                              http://www.icra.org/systemspecification/ and nearby.


                                              > Regards,
                                              > Suzan Foster.
                                              > --
                                              > p.s.: mrss-3.xml is missing the dcterms namespace and mrss-5.xml needs
                                              > updating for the revised <media;category> and <media:credit> elements.
                                            • Jeremy Zawodny
                                              We were also approached by another neutral third party earlier today (as I was leaving a meeting to discuss Media RSS no less!). The Media RSS pot is really
                                              Message 22 of 25 , Jul 18, 2005
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                We were also approached by another neutral third party earlier today (as
                                                I was leaving a meeting to discuss Media RSS no less!).

                                                The Media RSS pot is really starting to boil. We've been contacted by a
                                                few other interested folks recently too. So some of our off-list work
                                                has been helping them get up to speed and figure out what their needs are.

                                                There's clearly a need for this and it's clear to us that it needs to
                                                become something larger than "a Yahoo spec" or "an Apple spec" or whatnot.

                                                Jeremy

                                                Marc Canter wrote:
                                                > whether we can first give ownership of Media RSS to a neutral 3rd
                                                > party before pushing for standardization. The theory is that with it in
                                                > neutral hands, it might reduce some of the friction in third party adoption.
                                                >
                                                > Thoughts?
                                                >
                                                > [Jeremy]
                                                >
                                                > =================
                                                >
                                                > I vote yes to that. But it has to be a group which is focused on providing
                                                > open source infrastructure and who are already in the media game. Say
                                                > ourmedia.org.
                                                >
                                                > :-)
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >

                                                --
                                                Jeremy D. Zawodny, <jzawodn@...>
                                                Technical Yahoo - Yahoo Troublemaker
                                                Desk: (408) 349-7878 Cell: (408) 685-5936

                                                My Calendar: http://calendar.yahoo.com/jzawodn
                                              • Suzan Foster
                                                .. and an initial attempt at an RDF Schema for mRSS: http://www.xs4all.nl/~foz/mrss.rdf ... .. and an initial attempt at an RDF Schema for mRSS:
                                                Message 23 of 25 , Jul 18, 2005
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  .. and an initial attempt at an RDF Schema for mRSS:


                                                  On Jul 19, 2005, at 12:40 AM, Suzan Foster wrote:

                                                  On this note i've updated my attempts to RDFfy the examples from http://search.yahoo.com/mrss, see:


                                                  All validated against http://www.w3.org/RDF/Validator/

                                                  Regards,
                                                  Suzan Foster.
                                                  -- 
                                                  p.s.: mrss-3.xml is missing the dcterms namespace and mrss-5.xml needs updating for the revised <media;category> and <media:credit> elements.

                                                  On Jul 18, 2005, at 10:18 PM, Marc Canter wrote:

                                                  OK – so stage #1 – what Danny just said……

                                                   

                                                   

                                                  It might be that all is needed that the model described in Y!mRSS be
                                                  abstracted from the RSS 2.0 specifics, then re-expressed as Atom &
                                                  RDF. Given that Atom (and RDF) both have fairly clean extension
                                                  mechanisms, it shouldn't be necessary to cover every edge case in the
                                                  'primary' media extension, just get the core down.

                                                  Cheers,
                                                  Danny.

                                                   

                                                   

                                                   

                                                  Then stage 2 – would be to extend the meta-data – to include a wider range of uses.  Its very limited right now – but doesn’t have to go as far as what we did in ourmedia.  It just needs more than what’s in there now.

                                                   

                                                   

                                                  Then stage 3 – would happen when Flickr APIs for audio and video appear.  Driven by the revelations and insights from the Flickr community, I’m confidant this will rock.  And besides – Atom si suppose dot bring together schemas and APIs.  And that’s what Media RSS should end up being.

                                                   

                                                   

                                                  IMHO



                                                   
                                                  --

                                                  http://dannyayers.com



                                                  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS








                                                  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS





                                                • Gary
                                                  Sounds promising as a specification - bigger than Yahoo and Apple. - Gary ... today (as ... by a ... work ... needs are. ... to ... whatnot. ... with it in ...
                                                  Message 24 of 25 , Jul 19, 2005
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    Sounds promising as a specification - bigger than Yahoo and Apple.

                                                    - Gary



                                                    --- In rss-media@yahoogroups.com, Jeremy Zawodny <jzawodn@y...> wrote:
                                                    > We were also approached by another neutral third party earlier
                                                    today (as
                                                    > I was leaving a meeting to discuss Media RSS no less!).
                                                    >
                                                    > The Media RSS pot is really starting to boil. We've been contacted
                                                    by a
                                                    > few other interested folks recently too. So some of our off-list
                                                    work
                                                    > has been helping them get up to speed and figure out what their
                                                    needs are.
                                                    >
                                                    > There's clearly a need for this and it's clear to us that it needs
                                                    to
                                                    > become something larger than "a Yahoo spec" or "an Apple spec" or
                                                    whatnot.
                                                    >
                                                    > Jeremy
                                                    >
                                                    > Marc Canter wrote:
                                                    > > whether we can first give ownership of Media RSS to a neutral 3rd
                                                    > > party before pushing for standardization. The theory is that
                                                    with it in
                                                    > > neutral hands, it might reduce some of the friction in third
                                                    party adoption.
                                                    > >
                                                    > > Thoughts?
                                                    > >
                                                    > > [Jeremy]
                                                    > >
                                                    > > =================
                                                    > >
                                                    > > I vote yes to that. But it has to be a group which is focused on
                                                    providing
                                                    > > open source infrastructure and who are already in the media
                                                    game. Say
                                                    > > ourmedia.org.
                                                    > >
                                                    > > :-)
                                                    > >
                                                    > >
                                                    > >
                                                    > >
                                                    > >
                                                    > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                                    > >
                                                    > >
                                                    > >
                                                    > >
                                                    > >
                                                    > >
                                                    > >
                                                    > >
                                                    >
                                                    > --
                                                    > Jeremy D. Zawodny, <jzawodn@y...>
                                                    > Technical Yahoo - Yahoo Troublemaker
                                                    > Desk: (408) 349-7878 Cell: (408) 685-5936
                                                    >
                                                    > My Calendar: http://calendar.yahoo.com/jzawodn
                                                  • Suzan Foster
                                                    ... Yes, I saw this passing on Danny Ayers blog. He also made the case that mRSS was almost RDF as-is in a previous post to this list. The only gotcha s seem
                                                    Message 25 of 25 , Jul 24, 2005
                                                    • 0 Attachment
                                                      On Jul 19, 2005, at 1:11 AM, Dan Brickley wrote:

                                                      > Suzan Foster wrote:
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      >> On this note i've updated my attempts to RDFfy the examples
                                                      >> from http://search.yahoo.com/mrss, see:
                                                      >>
                                                      >> http://www.xs4all.nl/~foz/mrss-2.rdf
                                                      >> <http://www.xs4all.nl/%7Efoz/mrss-2.rdf>
                                                      >> http://www.xs4all.nl/~foz/mrss-3.rdf
                                                      >> <http://www.xs4all.nl/%7Efoz/mrss-3.rdf>
                                                      >> http://www.xs4all.nl/~foz/mrss-4.rdf
                                                      >> <http://www.xs4all.nl/%7Efoz/mrss-4.rdf>
                                                      >> http://www.xs4all.nl/~foz/mrss-5.rdf
                                                      >> <http://www.xs4all.nl/%7Efoz/mrss-5.rdf>
                                                      >>
                                                      >> All validated against http://www.w3.org/RDF/Validator/
                                                      >>
                                                      >>
                                                      > This is great! Thanks :)
                                                      >
                                                      > Did you happen to see my notes sent to the Atom list on friday,
                                                      > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/HTML/samples/atom/
                                                      > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/HTML/samples/atom/notes.html
                                                      > -> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/HTML/samples/atom/
                                                      > notes.html

                                                      Yes, I saw this passing on Danny Ayers' blog. He also made the case
                                                      that mRSS was almost RDF as-is in a previous post to this list. The
                                                      only gotcha's seem to be the <media:credit>, <media:category> and
                                                      <media:text>, as they generate properties on literals which the
                                                      validator doesn't accept. Hence, my use of foaf:name and dc:description

                                                      > It seems that there is a constrained subset of Atom that also
                                                      > parses as
                                                      > RDF/XML.
                                                      >
                                                      > If that's the case (the Atom RelaxNG schema didn't complain, at
                                                      > least :)
                                                      > then your RSS1-friendly RDF version of MRSS should just plug
                                                      > right in there.
                                                      >
                                                      > Atom in its full glory doesn't parse as RDF (we'd need to write an
                                                      > XSLT to
                                                      > do the conversion), and the subset that does is pretty restrictive.
                                                      > But
                                                      > I think
                                                      > worth investigating...

                                                      I was wondering if a GRDDL type approach is possible? F.I. I added a
                                                      reference to an as yet fictitious stylesheet to the RDF Schema [1].
                                                      This could then possibly be dereferenced instead of the current
                                                      document using an XML Catalog mapping.

                                                      I have been tweaking the rss-tag-soup parser (librdf) which I can
                                                      get to do a reasonable job on multiple media:content elements and
                                                      loose properties [2], but can't handle the <media:group> element. Nor
                                                      the <media:credit>, <media:category> and <media:text> elements
                                                      properly yet.

                                                      Regards,
                                                      Suzan Foster.
                                                      --
                                                      [1]

                                                      <owl:Ontology rdf:about="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss">
                                                      <dc:title>Media RSS Specification Version 1.0.0</dc:title>
                                                      <dc:description>
                                                      An RSS module that supplements the <enclosure> element
                                                      capabilities of RSS 2.0 to allow for more robust media syndication.
                                                      </dc:description>
                                                      <owl:imports rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema"/>
                                                      <owl:imports rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl"/>
                                                      <dataview:namespaceTransformation rdf:resource="http://
                                                      www.xs4all.nl/~foz/grokMRSS.xsl"/>
                                                      </owl:Ontology>

                                                      [2]

                                                      raptor_rss.c:1590:raptor_rss_emit: Emitting type 0 - channel
                                                      <http://www.foo.com> <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-
                                                      ns#type> <http://purl.org/rss/1.0/channel> .
                                                      <http://www.foo.com> <http://purl.org/rss/1.0/title> "Song Site" .
                                                      <http://www.foo.com> <http://purl.org/rss/1.0/link> "http://
                                                      www.foo.com" .
                                                      <http://www.foo.com> <http://purl.org/rss/1.0/description>
                                                      "Discussion on different songs" .
                                                      raptor_rss.c:1590:raptor_rss_emit: Emitting type 5 - Content
                                                      <http://www.foo.com/band1-song1.mp3> <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-
                                                      rdf-syntax-ns#type> <http://search.yahoo.com/mrssContent> .
                                                      <http://www.foo.com/band1-song1.mp3> <http://search.yahoo.com/
                                                      mrsscredit> "member of band1" .
                                                      <http://www.foo.com/band1-song1.mp3> <http://search.yahoo.com/
                                                      mrssadult> "false" .
                                                      <http://www.foo.com/band1-song1.mp3> <http://search.yahoo.com/
                                                      mrssfileSize> "1000" .
                                                      <http://www.foo.com/band1-song1.mp3> <http://search.yahoo.com/
                                                      mrssexpression> "full" .
                                                      <http://www.foo.com> <http://search.yahoo.com/mrssContent> <http://
                                                      www.foo.com/band1-song1.mp3> .
                                                      raptor_rss.c:1590:raptor_rss_emit: Emitting type 5 - Content
                                                      <http://www.foo.com/band2-song1.mp3> <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-
                                                      rdf-syntax-ns#type> <http://search.yahoo.com/mrssContent> .
                                                      <http://www.foo.com/band2-song1.mp3> <http://search.yahoo.com/
                                                      mrsscredit> "member of band2" .
                                                      <http://www.foo.com/band2-song1.mp3> <http://search.yahoo.com/
                                                      mrssadult> "false" .
                                                      <http://www.foo.com/band2-song1.mp3> <http://search.yahoo.com/
                                                      mrssfileSize> "2000" .
                                                      <http://www.foo.com/band2-song1.mp3> <http://search.yahoo.com/
                                                      mrssexpression> "full" .
                                                      <http://www.foo.com> <http://search.yahoo.com/mrssContent> <http://
                                                      www.foo.com/band2-song1.mp3> .
                                                      raptor_rss.c:1590:raptor_rss_emit: Emitting type 5 - Content
                                                      <http://www.foo.com/band3-song1.mp3> <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-
                                                      rdf-syntax-ns#type> <http://search.yahoo.com/mrssContent> .
                                                      <http://www.foo.com/band3-song1.mp3> <http://search.yahoo.com/
                                                      mrsscredit> "member of band3" .
                                                      <http://www.foo.com/band3-song1.mp3> <http://search.yahoo.com/
                                                      mrssadult> "false" .
                                                      <http://www.foo.com/band3-song1.mp3> <http://search.yahoo.com/
                                                      mrssfileSize> "1500" .
                                                      <http://www.foo.com/band3-song1.mp3> <http://search.yahoo.com/
                                                      mrssexpression> "full" .
                                                      <http://www.foo.com> <http://search.yahoo.com/mrssContent> <http://
                                                      www.foo.com/band3-song1.mp3> .
                                                      _:genid1 <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#type> <http://
                                                      www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#Seq> .
                                                      <http://www.foo.com> <http://purl.org/rss/1.0/items> _:genid1 .
                                                      <http://www.foo.com/item1.htm> <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-
                                                      syntax-ns#type> <http://purl.org/rss/1.0/item> .
                                                      <http://www.foo.com/item1.htm> <http://purl.org/rss/1.0/title> "These
                                                      songs make me think about blah" .
                                                      <http://www.foo.com/item1.htm> <http://purl.org/rss/1.0/link> "http://
                                                      www.foo.com/item1.htm" .
                                                      <http://www.foo.com/item1.htm> <http://search.yahoo.com/mrsscontent>
                                                      <http://www.foo.com/band1-song1.mp3> .
                                                      <http://www.foo.com/item1.htm> <http://search.yahoo.com/mrsscontent>
                                                      <http://www.foo.com/band2-song1.mp3> .
                                                      <http://www.foo.com/item1.htm> <http://search.yahoo.com/mrsscontent>
                                                      <http://www.foo.com/band3-song1.mp3> .
                                                      _:genid1 <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#_1> <http://
                                                      www.foo.com/item1.htm> .
                                                      rapper: Parsing returned 31 statements
                                                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.