Re: Total confusion in RSS-Land

[Aaron Swartz <aswartz@swartzfam.com>]

Dave Winer <dave@userland.com> wrote:

> Well, here's the deal, I'm very confused about what's going on here. I
> suppose many other people are as well.

I think a large part of the confusion stems from the fact that RSS is very
ambiguous. Is it a format? A process? A standard? A style? Who really owns
it? _Can_ someone own it? What does ownership mean in this context? It is
very confusing.

> I've been reading the archives of
> RSS-DEV, after participating and asking directly (a couple of months ago)
> where they're going, and never got an answer.

If that's true, I'm sorry. I'll try my best to answer here. (Please correct
me if there are inaccuracies in this account. I try my best, but I am only
human, and sometimes make mistakes.) First background:

Rael Dornfest began using RSS in several of his projects including Meerkat,
and some internal things in the O'Reilly Network. He liked the format, and
saw that it already had a wide adoption, but was disappointed that there
seemed to be no real way to extend the format. He proposed a modular system
using namespaces to extend RSS to this list. Many people expressed approval
of this system, and Dave repeatedly asked for a spec.

Not much seemed to happen after that until sometime in August, when Rael
announced the publication of the RSS 1.0 proposal, and the creation of the
RSS-DEV list to go with it.

Now, here's where I see us going:

First, we're trying to finish up a RSS 1.0 spec which:
    1) is backwards-compatible with 0.9
    2) uses RDF (although this point is currently under discussion)
    3) allows extensibility through namespaces
    4) is very similar to 0.9 in syntax and model

Once this is done, we're planning on doing work on RSS modules to allow
people to add additional information/functionality to RSS. Meanwhile, some
of us will continue to work on the core spec, simplifying it, fixing issues
that have been raised with it, and perhaps modifying it to allow for more
extension/functionality as needed.

What do we plan to use the format for? A lot, too much, you might say. Our
goal is spelled out in our title: RDF Site Summary. In my eyes, this means
that we're providing a way to distribute semantically-enhanced (like XML)
content for websites. That way, we can get content and information from
websites, without having to deal with "site scraping". Sort of like SOAP,
but only one-way. The key is getting more value and information out of web
sites. 

The RSS-DEV group will be a home for site publisher to meet together and
discuss the model and syntax of various modules, so their sites can provide
useful information, but also work together.

However, this is only my vision, others may see it differently.

Does this answer your question?

> RSS already is something. To have RSS go through this artificial identity
> crisis is a waste of a lot of people's hard work and for naught.

I don't understand this. How does work on a new version of RSS affect work
that has already been done on the old one? We're not taking away 0.9 and
0.91 from you! My.UserLand is just as useful and relevant as it always was.
Perhaps you could explain to me why the publication of RSS 1.0p is a waste
of a lot of people's hard work.

> In the end, the identity crisis is a no-op because RSS already is something.

I don't quite understand what you mean by no-op, but if you mean that we
won't get anywhere by fighting over who owns RSS, I agree. I'm sick and
tired of going around in circles and fighting about who gets to decide who
does and says what.

> It has an
> identity and a purpose. Look at My.UserLand and My.Netscape. RSS is the
> format behind these aggregators. Look at all the sources of RSS. They're
> publications.
> 
> Anyone who wants to make a real contribution, get busy living on the other
> side of the fence, as writers and editors, and understand the issues from
> our point of view. Then the format issues that are discussed with such
> passion fade into the background, they'll be feature-driven, instead of
> trying to bring RDF to world domination, which is something that RSS is
> *not* about, the goal will be to enable the Web to have its own syndication
> system that follows the grain of the Web.

I agree. This is totally right -- we want a system that is feature-driven,
not a standard no one will use. We want web publishers to work together to
build a system to empower the Web. The goal is what's important -- the
technology is only a way to get us there.

> http://davenet.userland.com/2000/09/29/strangeBedfellows
> 
> As long as the format is easy to understand, format issues matter not one
> bit. I'm totally unexcited about what's going on here. The only thing that
> keeps me here is the investment. But that's fading now too. I have much
> bigger things I want to do. This argument that keeps going on focuses all
> the attention on some ideas that are way way off-topic.

Then let's stop arguing and start working. If you have an important issue,
raise it. If you have a puzzling question, ask it. But let's not argue about
issues that don't matter, or don't help get anything resolved.

> My fallback is to work on ICE. A community that has professionalism and
> wants to go somewhere, and cares what I think. Clearly the RSS folk, whoever
> they are, don't care one whit. I'll put my efforts into ICE and learn the
> lessons from what happened here.

Dave, I care what you think, but it is only one opinion. I try and balance
with others. Sometimes people will disagree with you, people often disagree
with me -- even after I've explained and argued my point of view more than
was needed. When they do, I either give in and go with their way, or, if I
really care, go off and do things my way. If you want to go work with ICE,
that's fine. If you want to help RSS-DEV, that's also OK. If you want to
work on formats like RSS 0.92, that's great too.

-- 
Aaron Swartz | me@aaronsw.com | http://www.aaronsw.com