Re: Total confusion in RSS-Land

[Aaron Swartz <aswartz@swartzfam.com>]

Andy Powell <lisap@ukoln.ac.uk> wrote:

>> 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. 
> 
> If this is really the intended scope, then the 'channel' and 'item'
> metaphore used in RSS 1.0 doesn't seem appropriate - isn't it too limited
> to news-type applications?  (Perhaps my understanding of channel and item
> is too limited?)  If the plan is to move away from the use of channel and
> item, then ultimately you are just left with shipping arbitrary RDF around
> aren't you?

Again, I'm speaking for myself, not the list, but I see "channel" as the
collection we're summarizing. Channel may not be the best term, because it
has news/television connotations, but I'd resist something like "site"
because RSS channels can span multiple sites on the Web. I don't see moving
away from the channel and item system anytime soon, for me it makes a lot of
sense. Arbitrary RDF (as you say) can be about everything, RSS is
specifically about Web content (items) and the grouping of that content
(channels). However, as I'm sure you're aware of, Web content is a much
greater field than just news applications.

> I like the move to RDF/XML in 1.0 (because it means that other, non-RSS
> aware applications can re-use the RDF), but I also think that continuing
> with a focus on news or syndication-like applications is a good thing -
> the application gives the work some focus that it otherwise doesn't have?
> If the focus on syndication is retained, then the 'RDF Site Summary' name
> is potentially too grand!

Hey, HTML didn't have a lot of focus, and look at it! However, in my
description of syndication (posted in a separate thread on the syndication
list) there is little difference between syndication and site summary --
both are about sending semantically-enhanced content to others. If you mean
news item syndication, however, that's a different story.

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