On 3/23/07, john.breslin@... <john.breslin@...> wrote:
>
> Alan - you can add SIOC to your list:
>
> Semantically-Interlinked Online Communities
> http://www.sioc-project.org/

Yes, I already had the SIOC frontpage under

http://del.icio.us/alan.dean/sioc

and the SIOC spec is under

http://del.icio.us/alan.dean/rdf+specification

but you're right, I didn't have the schema. A quick google and
http://rdfs.org/sioc/ns is now added to
http://del.icio.us/alan.dean/rdf+schema

:-)

Thanks,
Alan Dean
http://thoughtpad.net/who/alan.dean/

Alan - you can add SIOC to your list:

Semantically-Interlinked Online Communities
http://www.sioc-project.org/

Thanks,

John.
--
Quoting Alan Dean <alan.dean@...>:

> On 23 Mar 2007 09:09:11 -0700, Real_Man <dca1505@...> wrote:
>>
>> Hi everyone....
>>
>> Can someone provide me some examples of pure RDF SCHEMA only ?
>> and also later an RDF schema with data.
>>
>> thanks a lot....
>
> I have a bunch of them bookmarked on del.icio.us:
>
> http://del.icio.us/alan.dean/rdf+schema
>
> Alan
>

On 23 Mar 2007 09:09:11 -0700, Real_Man <dca1505@...> wrote:
>
> Hi everyone....
>
> Can someone provide me some examples of pure RDF SCHEMA only ?
> and also later an RDF schema with data.
>
> thanks a lot....

I have a bunch of them bookmarked on del.icio.us:

http://del.icio.us/alan.dean/rdf+schema

Alan

Hi everyone....

Can someone provide me some examples of pure RDF SCHEMA only ?
and also later an RDF schema with data.

thanks a lot....

Cecelia Hickel wrote:
  > I would interested to know, will my hard work pay off for others if
  > I write a good module for instance.

Frankly, and while I have every psychological motivation to believe
otherwise, I would be pessimistic in this regard.

However. Would your module be useful in either other RDF efforts or ATOM
as well?

Would it be useful for you at least?

I'm pretty pessimistic about things, but I certainly don't want to
dissuade a fellow hacker from doing good work.

To All

I am hoping for discussion about RSS 1.0 and extending using Modules and have
needed one for some time.  However, the focus of this group has been on other
matters. So I decided instead of being pegged right away as a newbie and
interrupt development matters, to remain silent and hope for bits of knowledge
along the way to help me work through my own development issues. But as a
newbie, I fully agree that things are still confusing and I would never try and
point any blame on this to anyone.  I am just trying to learn all that I can
about RDF and in particular extending RDF RSS 1.0.

RSS is almost always associated with News and rightly so. However, RSS 1.0 can
be extended for many other purposes and I find this a very good thing.  However,
I need better understanding and information on how an extended RSS 1.0 is
"served" using modules. How do RSS parsers read and treat modules, what is
necessary to ensure validations/checks. While I can extend, what about the
application? The tools? The official stamp of acceptance for modules and have
the "proposed" status now approved.  I find that this  "proposed staus lead me
to believe that the work was being abandoned for  new ATOM developments and RSS
2.0. But then I had to learn that they were XML and RDF. So the question was
then, what about the approval of all those proposed modules?  Was that work
dropped from lack of time in the day?  The need to grow new members? Or was it
always intended to approve these at some point but has not yet happened?

The discussion that took place a couple of months ago sparked some of my own
questions.  I can see that all sides have good points and I would not wish to
change the name but I also make reference to RSS 1.0 as RDF-RSS 1.0 when I write
something or discuss it.   I use RDF first like others put the "X" in front of
everything XML.  It is confusing these differences. It has confused me until I
finally found some answers oin the matter and as a relatively new user I must
say I feel  I have had to sort and sift through all the cruft to try and rap my
mind around what is true and what isn't true.

I feel all of you have worked very hard and been extremely dedicated. I also
know personally what it feels like to have another lay claim on all your hard
work and even go as far to feel they are justified.  But for the benefit of
those who actually need a business success using the RSS 1.0 for successfully
because it is RDF, how about formally placing some stamps of approval on the
many deserving proposed modules? Hopefully such an act would promote new tool
developments for using RSS 1.0.

RSS 1.0 is not dead, it is unchanged, and it is neglected.  Modules and RDF are
a valuable tool at this time for the Web 2.0 and Semantic web efforts.The
freedom to extend RSS 1.0 using RDF is why some attention is needed on approving
the modules. An approved specification is important as you all know.

I would interested to know, will my hard work pay off for others if I write a
good module for instance.  How many others have already decided that RSS 1.0 is
deprecated as can be found written as a statment of fact on blogs. There is
nothing "official" to their statements, only observations which seem to allude
to that conclusion.  It is becoming the concensus which means in reality it is
losing its market share,a necessary evil for a funded development and successful
Internet implementations.

I am suggesting that approving the prosposed modules previously submitted would
turn things around, catch things up, and bring new energy to RDF, some newly
placed importance and limelight for RSS 1.0 because it is a proven RDF
technology, and hopefully new support, new tools, new applications, new
articless, maybe new technical documents/resources, etc.. It could be a good
time this time around.

Regards to all.
Cecelia

Bill Kearney <ml_yahoo@...> wrote: > > You're pushing an agenda that
isn't in keeping with what the effort
> > thus far has desired.  An agenda that, no matter how much spin or
> > clever acronyms are tried, isn't what the group here espouses.  It's
> > been a tiring process dealing with the half-thruths, abuses and
> > outright lies perperated under the guise of "improving" RSS.  It's no
> > wonder the participants are loathe to engage your proposal.
>
> I don't know who you're referring to in the second-to-last sentence,
> but if it's me, some specifics would be helpful.

I'm not sure it's worth rehashing again.

> I'm not discounting the possibility that my idea's so bad that few
> people on the working group will respond to it, even in opposition.

Bingo.

> But I think it's more likely the group isn't interested in working on
> RSS 1.0 any more.

I don't share that assumption.

> I don't mean that to sound like a rebuke, but as an interested
> outsider who has come to the working group twice in the past year, I'm
> just explaining why I'm unlikely to come back with a third request in
> the future.

So that's, what, a threat?  Gee, how unlike the 2.0 hijacking effort!
Listen to us or we'll go do our own thing.  Hmmm, and you wonder why there's
silence.

Frankly the version whole number jumping game Winer pulled has so
sufficiently polluted the RSS effort that few folks are interested in even
touching it.  Not many people would be interested in getting fucked over
AGAIN.  You, of all people, should be keenly aware of how tiring such things
can be.

Basically, RSS is screwed as a brand name.  And it's not this group's fault.
This group built the brand only to have a singular asshole and his lackeys
follow along with theft of it.  Does the fact their stolen property
(reaching a bit with the analogy here) has become popular justify robbing
the orignal effort of it's name.  No reasonable person would think so.

As for atom, let's hope the maxim of "good things coming to those who wait"
will apply.  There's no value in trying to play it's emerging acceptance as
some sort of justification for the 1.0 effort to abandon it's use and
ownship of the RSS name.  That dog just won't hunt.

-Bill Kearney
Syndic8.com




Yahoo! Groups Links






Cecelia Hickel
cjhickel@...

---------------------------------
Looking for earth-friendly autos?
  Browse Top Cars by "Green Rating" at Yahoo! Autos' Green Center.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

To All

I am hoping for discussion about RSS 1.0 and extending using Modules and have
needed one for some time.  However, the focus of this group has been on other
matters. So I decided instead of being pegged right away as a newbie and
interrupt development matters, to remain silent and hope for bits of knowledge
along the way to help me work through my own development issues. But as a
newbie, I fully agree that things are still confusing and I would never try and
point any blame on this to anyone.  I am just trying to learn all that I can
about RDF and in particular extending RDF RSS 1.0.

RSS is almost always associated with News and rightly so. However, RSS 1.0 can
be extended for many other purposes and I find this a very good thing.  However,
I need better understanding and information on how an extended RSS 1.0 is
"served" using modules. How do RSS parsers read and treat modules, what is
necessary to ensure validations/checks. While I can extend, what about the
application? The tools? The official stamp of acceptance for modules and have
the "proposed" status now approved.  I find that this  "proposed staus lead me
to believe that the work was being abandoned for  new ATOM developments and RSS
2.0. But then I had to learn that they were XML and RDF. So the question was
then, what about the approval of all those proposed modules?  Was that work
dropped from lack of time in the day?  The need to grow new members? Or was it
always intended to approve these at some point but has not yet happened?

The discussion that took place a couple of months ago sparked some of my own
questions.  I can see that all sides have good points and I would not wish to
change the name but I also make reference to RSS 1.0 as RDF-RSS 1.0 when I write
something or discuss it.   I use RDF first like others put the "X" in front of
everything XML.  It is confusing these differences. It has confused me until I
finally found some answers oin the matter and as a relatively new user I must
say I feel  I have had to sort and sift through all the cruft to try and rap my
mind around what is true and what isn't true.

I feel all of you have worked very hard and been extremely dedicated. I also
know personally what it feels like to have another lay claim on all your hard
work and even go as far to feel they are justified.  But for the benefit of
those who actually need a business success using the RSS 1.0 for successfully
because it is RDF, how about formally placing some stamps of approval on the
many deserving proposed modules? Hopefully such an act would promote new tool
developments for using RSS 1.0.

RSS 1.0 is not dead, it is unchanged, and it is neglected.  Modules and RDF are
a valuable tool at this time for the Web 2.0 and Semantic web efforts.The
freedom to extend RSS 1.0 using RDF is why some attention is needed on approving
the modules. An approved specification is important as you all know.

I would interested to know, will my hard work pay off for others if I write a
good module for instance.  How many others have already decided that RSS 1.0 is
deprecated as can be found written as a statment of fact on blogs. There is
nothing "official" to their statements, only observations which seem to allude
to that conclusion.  It is becoming the concensus which means in reality it is
losing its market share,a necessary evil for a funded development and successful
Internet implementations.

I am suggesting that approving the prosposed modules previously submitted would
turn things around, catch things up, and bring new energy to RDF, some newly
placed importance and limelight for RSS 1.0 because it is a proven RDF
technology, and hopefully new support, new tools, new applications, new
articless, maybe new technical documents/resources, etc.. It could be a good
time this time around.

Regards to all.
Cecelia

Bill Kearney <ml_yahoo@...> wrote: > > You're pushing an agenda that
isn't in keeping with what the effort
> > thus far has desired.  An agenda that, no matter how much spin or
> > clever acronyms are tried, isn't what the group here espouses.  It's
> > been a tiring process dealing with the half-thruths, abuses and
> > outright lies perperated under the guise of "improving" RSS.  It's no
> > wonder the participants are loathe to engage your proposal.
>
> I don't know who you're referring to in the second-to-last sentence,
> but if it's me, some specifics would be helpful.

I'm not sure it's worth rehashing again.

> I'm not discounting the possibility that my idea's so bad that few
> people on the working group will respond to it, even in opposition.

Bingo.

> But I think it's more likely the group isn't interested in working on
> RSS 1.0 any more.

I don't share that assumption.

> I don't mean that to sound like a rebuke, but as an interested
> outsider who has come to the working group twice in the past year, I'm
> just explaining why I'm unlikely to come back with a third request in
> the future.

So that's, what, a threat?  Gee, how unlike the 2.0 hijacking effort!
Listen to us or we'll go do our own thing.  Hmmm, and you wonder why there's
silence.

Frankly the version whole number jumping game Winer pulled has so
sufficiently polluted the RSS effort that few folks are interested in even
touching it.  Not many people would be interested in getting fucked over
AGAIN.  You, of all people, should be keenly aware of how tiring such things
can be.

Basically, RSS is screwed as a brand name.  And it's not this group's fault.
This group built the brand only to have a singular asshole and his lackeys
follow along with theft of it.  Does the fact their stolen property
(reaching a bit with the analogy here) has become popular justify robbing
the orignal effort of it's name.  No reasonable person would think so.

As for atom, let's hope the maxim of "good things coming to those who wait"
will apply.  There's no value in trying to play it's emerging acceptance as
some sort of justification for the 1.0 effort to abandon it's use and
ownship of the RSS name.  That dog just won't hunt.

-Bill Kearney
Syndic8.com




Yahoo! Groups Links






Cecelia Hickel
cjhickel@...

---------------------------------
It's here! Your new message!
Get new email alerts with the free Yahoo! Toolbar.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hello,

Line 6 of http://web.resource.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/ contains
an error:

<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="../../style.css" //>

(the last backslash is there twice, see also
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fweb.resource.org%2Frss%2F1.0%2Fmo\
dules%2Ftaxonomy%2F)

Could someone please fix this since it does not allow to check the
(XML) validity of feeds which use this module (since most XML checkers
also check the includes schemas).

Thanks!

Is there a list of translation for RSS 1.0?
Is there a french translation?

There was a sample or two of this in MSDN.

http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa478968.aspx
http://www.rssbandit.org/


   _____

From: rss-dev@yahoogroups.com [mailto:rss-dev@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
Mario
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 11:03 AM
To: rss-dev@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [RSS-DEV] RSS Atom Aggregator for ASP.NET



Hello:

I'm looking for a RSS/Atom Aggregator for ASP.NET.

Somebody knows anything about this?

Thank you.






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hello:

I'm looking for a RSS/Atom Aggregator for ASP.NET.

Somebody knows anything about this?

Thank you.

Thanks, James.

Gosh, I¹ve got a big red face now. I hadn¹t realized that Atom had a one
content element only per entry restriction. (Was thinking that it had this
real neat content packaging mechanism which would allow for multiple content
views for an entry regulated by media type.)

Ho, hum! Well, certainly agree that the content payload should be an XHTML
fragment. So now, as for structured semantic markup then we could just add
in XML namespaced properties (and do the same for RSS 2.0) although I know
that some really simple processors have problens with namespaces and
especially elements sporting the same name in multiple namespaces.
Preferable would be to reference a standalone RDF description. Perhaps I
could reference the RSS 1.0 feed? And if I wanted to do that on a per-item
basis how best would I index into an RSS 1.0 feed? I don¹t seem to have IDs
on the item elements.

(I note that Atom does allow for <link/> elements, and that RSS 2.0 always
has the <enclosure/> element ­ both taking a media type, I believe.)

Cheers,

Tony


On 25/1/07 16:46, "James Holderness" <j4_james@...> wrote:25/1/07
16:46

>
>
>
>
>> > Human - We add in XHTML markup within a <content type="xhtml"> element.
>> > Machine - We add in a complete RSS 1.0 item (sans <content:encoded>
>> > element)
>> > within a <content type="application/rdf+xml"> element. This seems
>> > preferable
>> > to defining arbitrary RDF/XML and provides best fit with the RSS 1.0 feed.
>> > In essence the Atom entries contain standalone RDF islands along with an
>> > XHTML view.
>
> One major problem is that Atom doesn't allow multiple content elements per
> item. I suppose you could put the XHTML in a summary element and leave the
> RDF stuff in the content element, but the XHTML isn't really a summary of
> the RDF stuff is it? It's probably more appropriate to just have the XHTML
> in the content element and then include an alternate link element pointing
> to the RDF stuff externally.
>
> Also, your dates and ids aren't valid, but that should be easy to fix.
>
> Regards
> James
>
>
>



********************************************************************************
DISCLAIMER: This e-mail is confidential and should not be used by anyone who is
not the original intended recipient. If you have received this e-mail in error
please inform the sender and delete it from your mailbox or any other storage
mechanism. Neither Macmillan Publishers Limited nor any of its agents accept
liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not
expressly made on behalf of Macmillan Publishers Limited or one of its agents.
Please note that neither Macmillan Publishers Limited nor any of its agents
accept any responsibility for viruses that may be contained in this e-mail or
its attachments and it is your responsibility to scan the e-mail and
attachments (if any). No contracts may be concluded on behalf of Macmillan
Publishers Limited or its agents by means of e-mail communication. Macmillan
Publishers Limited Registered in England and Wales with registered number 785998
Registered Office Brunel Road, Houndmills, Basingstoke RG21 6XS
********************************************************************************


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> Human - We add in XHTML markup within a <content type="xhtml"> element.
> Machine - We add in a complete RSS 1.0 item (sans <content:encoded>
> element)
> within a <content type="application/rdf+xml"> element. This seems
> preferable
> to defining arbitrary RDF/XML and provides best fit with the RSS 1.0 feed.
> In essence the Atom entries contain standalone RDF islands along with an
> XHTML view.

One major problem is that Atom doesn't allow multiple content elements per
item. I suppose you could put the XHTML in a summary element and leave the
RDF stuff in the content element, but the XHTML isn't really a summary of
the RDF stuff is it? It's probably more appropriate to just have the XHTML
in the content element and then include an alternate link element pointing
to the RDF stuff externally.

Also, your dates and ids aren't valid, but that should be easy to fix.

Regards
James

Hi:

Am looking for some feedback on an approach we are looking at to upgrade our
current RSS feeds (RSS 1.0) to a wider (and neutral) offering (RSS 1.0, RSS
2.0, Atom) which supports both machine and human readable views. Demo
versions (largely complete; filenames just temporary) are available at

     RSS 1.0 - http://nurture.nature.com/tony/rss/nature_rdf.rss

     RSS 2.0 - http://nurture.nature.com/tony/rss/nature_rss.rss

     Atom    - http://nurture.nature.com/tony/rss/nature_atom.rss

Some notes below.

Cheers,

Tony


RSS 1.0

Human - Seems to be simply a question of adding in XHTML markup as a CDATA
section within a <content:encoded> element.
Machine - RDF properties already provide for this.

RSS 2.0 - (I know, but still evaluating)

Human - We follow general practice and add XHTML markup as a CDATA section
within the <description> element.
Machine - We use XML namespaces and mimic the RDF properties of RSS 1.0.

Atom - (See skeleton below)

Human - We add in XHTML markup within a <content type="xhtml"> element.
Machine - We add in a complete RSS 1.0 item (sans <content:encoded> element)
within a <content type="application/rdf+xml"> element. This seems preferable
to defining arbitrary RDF/XML and provides best fit with the RSS 1.0 feed.
In essence the Atom entries contain standalone RDF islands along with an
XHTML view.

One question would be whether to explicitly namespace the RSS elements (e.g.
"rss") or just to use a default XML namespace.

###
Atom (Skeleton)

<feed xmlns="">
     <title type="text"></title>
     <updated/>
     <id/>
     <link rel="alternate" type="" href=""/>
     <link rel="self" type="" href=""/>
     <rights/>
     <entry/>
</feed>

<entry>
     <title/>
     <link rel="alternate" type="" href=""/>
     <id/>
     <updated/>
     <published/>
     <author>
        <name/>
        <uri/>
        <email/>
     </author>
     <contributor>
        <name/>
     </contributor>
     <content type="xhtml" xml:lang="">
        <div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
         Š
        </div>
     </content>
    <content type="application/rdf+xml">
        <rdf:Description xmlns:rss="..." xmlns:rdf="..." xmlns:dc="..." ... >
            <rss:item rdf:about="http://...">
                <rss:title/>
                <rss:ink/>
                <rss:description/>
                <dc:title/>
                <dc:creator/>
                <dc:identifier/>
                <dc:source/>
                ...
           </rss:item>
       </rdf:Description>
     </content>

</entry>
###

********************************************************************************
DISCLAIMER: This e-mail is confidential and should not be used by anyone who is
not the original intended recipient. If you have received this e-mail in error
please inform the sender and delete it from your mailbox or any other storage
mechanism. Neither Macmillan Publishers Limited nor any of its agents accept
liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not
expressly made on behalf of Macmillan Publishers Limited or one of its agents.
Please note that neither Macmillan Publishers Limited nor any of its agents
accept any responsibility for viruses that may be contained in this e-mail or
its attachments and it is your responsibility to scan the e-mail and
attachments (if any). No contracts may be concluded on behalf of Macmillan
Publishers Limited or its agents by means of e-mail communication. Macmillan
Publishers Limited Registered in England and Wales with registered number 785998
Registered Office Brunel Road, Houndmills, Basingstoke RG21 6XS
********************************************************************************

Surely you mean RDFSS Jon? :)

-------- Original Message --------
Subject:     Re: [RSS-DEV] Renaming RSS 1.0 as RSS-RDF
Date:     Tue, 12 Dec 2006 15:04:29 +0000
From:     Jon Hanna <jon@...>
Reply-To:     rss-dev@yahoogroups.com
To:     rss-dev@yahoogroups.com
References:     <ell7sc+eluv@eGroups.com>


RDF Site Summary-RDF?

RDF, so good they named it twice? :)
--
Dr. John Breslin
DERI, NUI Galway
http://sw.deri.org/~jbreslin/
john.breslin@...

--- In rss-dev@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Kearney" <ml_yahoo@...> wrote:
> So that's, what, a threat? Gee, how unlike the 2.0 hijacking
> effort! Listen to us or we'll go do our own thing.  Hmmm, and you
> wonder why there's silence.

Calling it a threat presumes that withholding my future proposals
would be some form of punishment to the working group.

As I said, it's just where I'm at as one person who has twice brought
stuff to the group only to experience an "is this microphone on?" moment.

As for the "who owns RSS?" argument, that's a can of worms I've
already opened too many times.

> > You're pushing an agenda that isn't in keeping with what the effort
> > thus far has desired.  An agenda that, no matter how much spin or
> > clever acronyms are tried, isn't what the group here espouses.  It's
> > been a tiring process dealing with the half-thruths, abuses and
> > outright lies perperated under the guise of "improving" RSS.  It's no
> > wonder the participants are loathe to engage your proposal.
>
> I don't know who you're referring to in the second-to-last sentence,
> but if it's me, some specifics would be helpful.

I'm not sure it's worth rehashing again.

> I'm not discounting the possibility that my idea's so bad that few
> people on the working group will respond to it, even in opposition.

Bingo.

> But I think it's more likely the group isn't interested in working on
> RSS 1.0 any more.

I don't share that assumption.

> I don't mean that to sound like a rebuke, but as an interested
> outsider who has come to the working group twice in the past year, I'm
> just explaining why I'm unlikely to come back with a third request in
> the future.

So that's, what, a threat?  Gee, how unlike the 2.0 hijacking effort!
Listen to us or we'll go do our own thing.  Hmmm, and you wonder why there's
silence.

Frankly the version whole number jumping game Winer pulled has so
sufficiently polluted the RSS effort that few folks are interested in even
touching it.  Not many people would be interested in getting fucked over
AGAIN.  You, of all people, should be keenly aware of how tiring such things
can be.

Basically, RSS is screwed as a brand name.  And it's not this group's fault.
This group built the brand only to have a singular asshole and his lackeys
follow along with theft of it.  Does the fact their stolen property
(reaching a bit with the analogy here) has become popular justify robbing
the orignal effort of it's name.  No reasonable person would think so.

As for atom, let's hope the maxim of "good things coming to those who wait"
will apply.  There's no value in trying to play it's emerging acceptance as
some sort of justification for the 1.0 effort to abandon it's use and
ownship of the RSS name.  That dog just won't hunt.

-Bill Kearney
Syndic8.com

--- In rss-dev@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Kearney" <ml_yahoo@...> wrote:
> That *you're* not getting traction doesn't equate with much.

We (you, me, Jon Hanna and Randy Charles Morin) didn't get much
traction with the joint RSS MIME type proposal here either. It also
seemed like the RSS 1.1 effort didn't get much traction in early 2005.

> You're pushing an agenda that isn't in keeping with what the effort
> thus far has desired.  An agenda that, no matter how much spin or
> clever acronyms are tried, isn't what the group here espouses.  It's
> been a tiring process dealing with the half-thruths, abuses and
> outright lies perperated under the guise of "improving" RSS.  It's no
> wonder the participants are loathe to engage your proposal.

I don't know who you're referring to in the second-to-last sentence,
but if it's me, some specifics would be helpful.

I'm not discounting the possibility that my idea's so bad that few
people on the working group will respond to it, even in opposition.
But I think it's more likely the group isn't interested in working on
RSS 1.0 any more.

I don't mean that to sound like a rebuke, but as an interested
outsider who has come to the working group twice in the past year, I'm
just explaining why I'm unlikely to come back with a third request in
the future.

--- In rss-dev@yahoogroups.com, Eric van der Vlist <vdv@...> wrote:
> A lot of them have changed their email addresses. Have you got more
> recent addresses than those on the spec?

I went looking for more recent addresses, and was successful for all
but a few authors. There's only one I didn't contact intentionally,
because I ran into him on another mailing list a few months ago and he
indicated he had intentionally gotten away from all matters related to
RSS.

Incidentally, I also heard that Atom appears to be gaining audience
share at expense of the RSSes, but I haven't found hard numbers yet.

Le lundi 18 décembre 2006 à 15:47 +0000, rcade a écrit :
> --- In rss-dev@yahoogroups.com, Eric van der Vlist <vdv@...> wrote:
> > I can see you point and think your suggestion should be considered
> > if we ever publish a new version of RSS 1.0 but I don't see how we
> > could justify changing the name of a spec that hasn't changed.
>
> Given the response to the RSS 1.1 proposal here when it was pitched in
> January 2005, it appears that a successive version of RSS 1.0 is
> highly unlikely.
>
> I e-mailed almost all of the RSS 1.0 authors

A lot of them have changed their email addresses. Have you got more
recent addresses than those on the spec?

> and current working group
> members to inform them of my proposal. I also reached out for the
> joint RSS MIME type proposal earlier this year.
>
> This working group is in pretty deep hibernation.

There is still hope: you've succeeded to waken one of the
authors :) ...

> I'd be surprised if
> anyone could get a vote sparked on any proposal from here on out.

You're probably right but then there is no way we can change its name!

Eric

>
--
GPG-PGP: 2A528005
Carnet web :
            http://eric.van-der-vlist.com/blog?t=category&a=Fran%C3%A7ais
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric van der Vlist       http://xmlfr.org            http://dyomedea.com
(ISO) RELAX NG   ISBN:0-596-00421-4 http://oreilly.com/catalog/relax
(W3C) XML Schema ISBN:0-596-00252-1 http://oreilly.com/catalog/xmlschema
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

That *you're* not getting traction doesn't equate with much.

You're pushing an agenda that isn't in keeping with what the effort thus far
has desired.  An agenda that, no matter how much spin or clever acronyms are
tried, isn't what the group here espouses.  It's been a tiring process
dealing with the half-thruths, abuses and outright lies perperated under the
guise of "improving" RSS.  It's no wonder the participants are loathe to
engage your proposal.

-Bill Kearney
Syndic8.com

----- Original Message -----

> --- In rss-dev@yahoogroups.com, Eric van der Vlist <vdv@...> wrote:
> > I can see you point and think your suggestion should be considered
> > if we ever publish a new version of RSS 1.0 but I don't see how we
> > could justify changing the name of a spec that hasn't changed.
>
> Given the response to the RSS 1.1 proposal here when it was pitched in
> January 2005, it appears that a successive version of RSS 1.0 is
> highly unlikely.
>
> I e-mailed almost all of the RSS 1.0 authors and current working group
> members to inform them of my proposal. I also reached out for the
> joint RSS MIME type proposal earlier this year.
>
> This working group is in pretty deep hibernation. I'd be surprised if
> anyone could get a vote sparked on any proposal from here on out.

--- In rss-dev@yahoogroups.com, Eric van der Vlist <vdv@...> wrote:
> I can see you point and think your suggestion should be considered
> if we ever publish a new version of RSS 1.0 but I don't see how we
> could justify changing the name of a spec that hasn't changed.

Given the response to the RSS 1.1 proposal here when it was pitched in
January 2005, it appears that a successive version of RSS 1.0 is
highly unlikely.

I e-mailed almost all of the RSS 1.0 authors and current working group
members to inform them of my proposal. I also reached out for the
joint RSS MIME type proposal earlier this year.

This working group is in pretty deep hibernation. I'd be surprised if
anyone could get a vote sparked on any proposal from here on out.

Hi,

Le mardi 12 décembre 2006 à 03:32 +0000, rcade a écrit :

.../...
>
> When RSS 1.0 was launched, a vote to change the name to xRSS almost
> had majority support here -- the final result was 11 yes, 11 no:
>
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/rss-dev/surveys?id=368260
>
> I'm probably getting myself into trouble by asking this, but is there
> any support for renaming RSS 1.0 as RSS-RDF, either through a simple
> name change or a more involved process?

As far as I remember, this poll reflects the mixed feelings that we had
about changing our name and what did make the difference is that we had,
among the group, some of the original authors of RSS 0.9 who said they
cared about keeping that name.

Their point was that RSS 1.0 was carrying more of the original
motivations and design principles of RSS than the other branch and
AFAIK, this is still true.

I can see you point and think your suggestion should be considered if we
ever publish a new version of RSS 1.0 but I don't see how we could
justify changing the name of a spec that hasn't changed.

What about asking to Tim Berners-Lee if he wouldn't mind changing the
name "Web" (as in "Web 1.0") because it's causing confusions with Web
2.0 :) ?

Eric
--
GPG-PGP: 2A528005
Lisez-moi sur XMLfr.
                        http://xmlfr.org/index/person/eric+van+der+vlist/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric van der Vlist       http://xmlfr.org            http://dyomedea.com
(ISO) RELAX NG   ISBN:0-596-00421-4 http://oreilly.com/catalog/relax
(W3C) XML Schema ISBN:0-596-00252-1 http://oreilly.com/catalog/xmlschema
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In rss-dev@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Kearney" <ml_yahoo@...> wrote:
> Ah yeah, right.  Let's see, one format comes up with a name, then some
> jackass hijacks it by playing version number games.  Then it becomes
> the originator's responsibility to change their name?  No way.

I have a longer reply in Yahoo Groups limbo. In case it doesn't make
it, here's the short version:

The RSS-DEV Working Group has no responsibility to change RSS 1.0's
name because of confusion with RSS 2.0. I think a name change would
enable RSS 1.0 to reach a bigger audience and clear up the
version-related confusion in RSS.

Calling it RSS for the Resource Description Framework (RSS-RDF) lets
you still descrive the format as RSS while gaining a more specific
name that capitalizes on the association with RDF.

--- In rss-dev@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Kearney" <ml_yahoo@...> wrote:
> Ah yeah, right.  Let's see, one format comes up with a name, then some
> jackass hijacks it by playing version number games.  Then it becomes
> the originator's responsibility to change their name?  No way.

I'm not suggesting that the RSS-DEV Working Group is obligated to
change the name of RSS 1.0 because of confusion with RSS 2.0.

I'm suggesting that RSS 1.0 would benefit from the name change,
because it's getting overlooked in confusion with RSS 2.0.

Your working group's in a position to rename RSS 1.0 because you own
the copyright to the specification and have a respected, six-year-old
public process for making changes to it.

The advisory board's in no position to rename RSS 2.0. If we did, I'm
certain it would be treated by the public as a third branch of RSS.

You've followed the board's work this year. We've promoted Atom and
RSS 1.0. Every page of our site links to yours.

The version number fight was unfortunate, but I feel like this is a
win-win solution. Recasting RDF Site Summary (RSS) as RSS for the
Resource Description Framework (RSS-RDF) is like Dave Winer's decision
to start calling RSS 0.9x/2.0 Really Simple Syndication. The name
helps sell the public on the format.

If you adopted the name RSS for the Resource Description Framework,
RSS 1.0 could still call itself RSS *and* gain the more specific name
RSS-RDF. You're already the No. 1 result for that term in Google:

http://masl.to/?B48021D5E

Where's the downside here?

> > Yes you are, and no there's not.
>
> I've pinged RSS 1.0's authors along with several of the working group
> members who joined afterward.
>
> RSS 1.0 would do better, marketing wise, under the name RSS for the
> Resource Definition Framework (RSS-RDF).

Ah yeah, right.  Let's see, one format comes up with a name, then some
jackass hijacks it by playing version number games.  Then it becomes the
originator's responsibility to change their name?  No way.

You, of all people, know better than to play this game.

If renaming becomes a reality, I would suggest that the new name should
NOT have an embedded dash in the name (e.g., RSSRDF, RSSrdf or rssrdf
instead of RSS-RDF).

-Gary Berosik

________________________________

From: rss-dev@yahoogroups.com [mailto:rss-dev@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of rcade
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 9:32 PM
To: rss-dev@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [RSS-DEV] Renaming RSS 1.0 as RSS-RDF



The existence of two similar but incompatible formats that call
themselves RSS is a persistent problem for everyone who supports these
formats, whether they're involved in RSS 1.0 or RSS 2.0.

As RSS adoption has grown, RSS 2.0 has built a huge lead on RSS 1.0,
from the looks of the version stats published at Syndic8. Here's the
numbers, based on today's page and pages archived by the Internet
Archive:

Today: RSS 2.0 76.3%, RSS 1.0 11.3%

Feb. 2006: RSS 2.0 68.3%, RSS 1.0 17.6%

March 2005: RSS 2.0 62.1%, RSS 1.0 16.5%

December 2004: RSS 2.0 49.2%, RSS 1.0 20.6%

April 2004: RSS 2.0 24.6%, RSS 1.0 47.3%

We can debate the reasons why, but my guess is that the higher version
number is as much a factor as anything else. I anticipate that RSS 2.0
will continue to grow relative to RSS 1.0 because of Microsoft's
choice to normalize to RSS 2.0 in Windows Vista and MSIE.

When RSS 1.0 was launched, a vote to change the name to xRSS almost
had majority support here -- the final result was 11 yes, 11 no:

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/rss-dev/surveys?id=368260
<http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/rss-dev/surveys?id=368260>

I'm probably getting myself into trouble by asking this, but is there
any support for renaming RSS 1.0 as RSS-RDF, either through a simple
name change or a more involved process?

Although I'm on the RSS Advisory Board, I think that the three
syndication formats each has a strong selling point:

- RSS 2.0 is simple, loose and popular

- Atom is an Internet standard that's more adaptable to uses outside
site syndication

- RSS 1.0 builds on RDF

I'm not a member of the RSS-DEV Working Group, but I'd like to urge
you to consider renaming RSS 1.0 as RSS-RDF. The name change would
highlight the format's implementation of RDF and give the rival RSSes
some breathing room.

On a personal note, it would also make it considerably easier for me
to describe your format in various things I write for the RSS board.
It's tough for me to say anything about RSS 1.0 on our site because of
the potential for newbie confusion. People assume it's a previous
iteration of RSS 2.0, not a different format that shares a common
ancestor.

I've e-mailed the authors of the RSS 1.0 spec to see if there's an
opportunity here.






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In rss-dev@yahoogroups.com, Jon Hanna <jon@...> wrote:
> RDF Site Summary-RDF?
> RDF, so good they named it twice? :)

I was thinking more along the lines of RSS for the Resource Description
Framework (RSS-RDF), but I'm enough of a dork to appreciate a
recursive acronym like GNU's Not UNIX.

On 12/12/06, rcade <cadenhead@...> wrote:
> I'm not a member of the RSS-DEV Working Group, but I'd like to urge
> you to consider renaming RSS 1.0 as RSS-RDF.

How about "RDF-Syndication"?

Alan Dean

--- In rss-dev@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Kearney" <ml_yahoo@...> wrote:
> Yes you are, and no there's not.

I've pinged RSS 1.0's authors along with several of the working group
members who joined afterward.

RSS 1.0 would do better, marketing wise, under the name RSS for the
Resource Definition Framework (RSS-RDF). You've already got RDF in the
format's name, but it's being lost in the Really Simple Syndication
hype, from the looks of the Syndic8 numbers.

Additionally, RDF Site Summary is a bit of a misnomer for a
syndication format that does more than summarize web site content in XML.

If one of the goals of RSS 1.0 is the furtherance of RDF, how does it
help to be mistaken for a past version of RSS 2.0?