semref

["Seth Russell" <seth@robustai.net>]

Dave,

Two things, First:   There is a way you could hedge your bet and allow
"Really Simple Syndication" to coexist with, and even participate in,  any
synergy that might happen on TimBl's proposed Semantic Web.   All you would
need to do would be to add another element to your item, call it "semref"
which would indicate that the item is further elaborated in a *separate*
RDF file.

I proposed this to the RDF 1.0 people also:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rss-dev/message/3548
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rss-dev/message/3560

And Second:  It looks like the RSS 1.0 people are going to be pig headed and
keep the RSS name.  Whether they are justified in this or not is no longer
the issue ... but why should the community be penalized because of this ego
tug-a-war?  Why should we be subjected to further specification confusions
piled on upon  a history of specification confusions .. all in the name of
simplicity.   It takes two to be pig-headed.    Couldn't you choose to end
the wrangling forever just by naming RSS 2.0 something else?

Seth Russell
http://robustai.net/sailor/