Re: [syndication] Re: State of unique IDs on newsfeed items?

[Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>]

Oh, I agree; the RDF stuff has been plagued by wonkishness for a long
time, and it's still a big blind spot, IMHO. I feel comfortable with
RDF and RDF Schema after prolonged exposure, and then they come along
with something like [1]; it *is* enough to make your head hurt. 

Regardless of all of that, I think there's some cool stuff buried in
RDF; I've seen a few interesting things that you can do with it, and
I've seen a lot of XML applications that really should be RDF/XML
applications.

Despite all of that, I didn't mean to drag the RDF wars into this;
all that I was saying is that if you want a unique identifier, the
item URI is a good place to start; that's what URIs are all about.

Cheers,


[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/



On Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 03:38:05AM -0000, Bill Kearney wrote:
> > This relates somewhat to a question [1] I asked a while back 
> regarding
> > using RDF for syndication feeds.
> 
> Much like getting an ice-cream headache from eating cold stuff too 
> fast, reading the RDF stuff makes my head hurt.  
> 
> It DOES make sense.  Either the documentation on the sites has been 
> rewritten since I last read it or I'm getting better at reading it.  
> It's still reeeeeealy wonkish to read.  That and from what I hear 
> from some programmers, so is the code to use it.
> 
> I'm going to try to step gently back from this ticking bomb.  Please 
> folks, let's either have a rational conversation about RDF or just 
> let it go.  I only asked about unique IDs.
> 
> -Bill Kearney
> 
> 
>  
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 
> 
> 

-- 
Mark Nottingham
http://www.mnot.net/