<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Atom and RDF</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.mauveweb.co.uk/2007/01/17/atom-and-rdf/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.mauveweb.co.uk/2007/01/17/atom-and-rdf/</link>
	<description>experiments in contemporary web development</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 08 Jun 2010 18:23:30 +0100</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: CJ Hickel</title>
		<link>http://blog.mauveweb.co.uk/2007/01/17/atom-and-rdf/comment-page-1/#comment-5538</link>
		<dc:creator>CJ Hickel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Mar 2007 20:45:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.mauveweb.co.uk/2007/01/17/atom-and-rdf/#comment-5538</guid>
		<description>Yes, the RSS wars have been a hassle, especially before browsers would deliver RSS to the desktop. RSS&#039;s greatest success has been in using it for syndication and agreement has been difficult. Even now there is RSS 2.0 and Atom.  I try not to overload myself and simply monitor as I am not planning on using either.

But I would say, that those efforts for both RSS 2.0 and ATOM have the zeal of the semantic web development and on that note I get &quot;confused&quot;. When I joined the group I was desparately hoping to learn more on the RSS 1.0 but the focus was on ATOM and XML. 

I see the XML ATOM/RSS 2.0 format as a tool as a common syndication exchange format for common application development and easy file exhange, a more static server/flat file approach. This is effective for its purpose but also limited in purpose.  

I do believe that some focus and development on RDF/RSS should have remained a matter of importance to support the semantic web. RDF is the foundation as you know and tool development for RDF RSS servers has not been promoted.

You say you are using triples storage instaed of a RDB for this site.  Would you share your setup with me and how you approach back-end storages for triples?  I am finding it harder to nail down than I anticipated. Most discussions are on the RDF triple storage themselves and not the actual data. Could you please shed some light for me? I am using Zope 2.9.6 at present for development on RH FC6. The more I research the more I realize I need to learn something, I am missing something fundamental and basic. I am trying to answer the question &quot;Where does the DATA go?&quot;. You say in a triple store, so what does that mean?

Thansk so much for your help..</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes, the <acronym title="Really Simple Syndication">RSS</acronym> wars have been a hassle, especially before browsers would deliver <acronym title="Really Simple Syndication">RSS</acronym> to the desktop. <acronym title="Really Simple Syndication">RSS</acronym>'s greatest success has been in using it for syndication and agreement has been difficult. Even now there is <acronym title="Really Simple Syndication">RSS</acronym> 2.0 and Atom.  I try not to overload myself and simply monitor as I am not planning on using either.</p>
<p>But I would say, that those efforts for both <acronym title="Really Simple Syndication">RSS</acronym> 2.0 and ATOM have the zeal of the semantic web development and on that note I get "confused". When I joined the group I was desparately hoping to learn more on the <acronym title="Really Simple Syndication">RSS</acronym> 1.0 but the focus was on ATOM and <acronym title="eXtensible Markup Language">XML</acronym>. </p>
<p>I see the <acronym title="eXtensible Markup Language">XML</acronym> ATOM/RSS 2.0 format as a tool as a common syndication exchange format for common application development and easy file exhange, a more static server/flat file approach. This is effective for its purpose but also limited in purpose.  </p>
<p>I do believe that some focus and development on <acronym title="Resource Description Framework">RDF</acronym>/RSS should have remained a matter of importance to support the semantic web. <acronym title="Resource Description Framework">RDF</acronym> is the foundation as you know and tool development for <acronym title="Resource Description Framework">RDF</acronym> <acronym title="Really Simple Syndication">RSS</acronym> servers has not been promoted.</p>
<p>You say you are using triples storage instaed of a RDB for this site.  Would you share your setup with me and how you approach back-end storages for triples?  I am finding it harder to nail down than I anticipated. Most discussions are on the <acronym title="Resource Description Framework">RDF</acronym> triple storage themselves and not the actual data. Could you please shed some light for me? I am using Zope 2.9.6 at present for development on RH FC6. The more I research the more I realize I need to learn something, I am missing something fundamental and basic. I am trying to answer the question "Where does the DATA go?". You say in a triple store, so what does that mean?</p>
<p>Thansk so much for your help..</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mauve</title>
		<link>http://blog.mauveweb.co.uk/2007/01/17/atom-and-rdf/comment-page-1/#comment-5487</link>
		<dc:creator>mauve</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 Mar 2007 23:26:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.mauveweb.co.uk/2007/01/17/atom-and-rdf/#comment-5487</guid>
		<description>I don&#039;t mean that RSS 1.0 is officially deprecated, but I think it&#039;s been abandoned by most developers.

I have seen a lot of comments on various sites saying &quot;Hey, don&#039;t you know Atom 1.0 is an IETF standard? Why aren&#039;t you supporting that instead of crummy old RSS?&quot;

Even if that kind of comment comes from a position of ignorance about RDF, Atom was created in the hope of bringing an end to the format wars of RSS which mean that any syndication software has to support at least a half a dozen incompatible formats.

That is a goal I support, even if I would much rather see consensus around RDF.

RDF is not going away (indeed, Mauvespace is based around it to the point where it uses a triple store instead of a relational database), but I think its time as a syndication format has been curtailed by the publication of RSS2.0 and Atom specs by people who didn&#039;t care about the semantic web.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don't mean that <acronym title="Really Simple Syndication">RSS</acronym> 1.0 is officially deprecated, but I think it's been abandoned by most developers.</p>
<p>I have seen a lot of comments on various sites saying "Hey, don't you know Atom 1.0 is an IETF standard? Why aren't you supporting that instead of crummy old <acronym title="Really Simple Syndication">RSS</acronym>?"</p>
<p>Even if that kind of comment comes from a position of ignorance about <acronym title="Resource Description Framework">RDF</acronym>, Atom was created in the hope of bringing an end to the format wars of <acronym title="Really Simple Syndication">RSS</acronym> which mean that any syndication software has to support at least a half a dozen incompatible formats.</p>
<p>That is a goal I support, even if I would much rather see consensus around <acronym title="Resource Description Framework">RDF</acronym>.</p>
<p><acronym title="Resource Description Framework">RDF</acronym> is not going away (indeed, Mauvespace is based around it to the point where it uses a triple store instead of a relational database), but I think its time as a syndication format has been curtailed by the publication of RSS2.0 and Atom specs by people who didn't care about the semantic web.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: CJ Hickel</title>
		<link>http://blog.mauveweb.co.uk/2007/01/17/atom-and-rdf/comment-page-1/#comment-5486</link>
		<dc:creator>CJ Hickel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 Mar 2007 22:08:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.mauveweb.co.uk/2007/01/17/atom-and-rdf/#comment-5486</guid>
		<description>I am developing using RSS 1.0 and also using modules to extend for my own purposes. Not sure why you stated RSS 1.0 is deprecated. I monitor the RSS-Dev group, and I may have missed something but I  have not seen any such discussion. I have seen however, the preference for RSS 1.0 for robust RSS models, particularly in the scientific communities.  Not sure why ATOM needs to be compared to RSS 1.0, either you care about RDF or you don&#039;t. In you do not, then Atom is a choice. I feel RDF has not come into its own yet but it will someday very soon. Just thoughts.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I am developing using <acronym title="Really Simple Syndication">RSS</acronym> 1.0 and also using modules to extend for my own purposes. Not sure why you stated <acronym title="Really Simple Syndication">RSS</acronym> 1.0 is deprecated. I monitor the <acronym title="Really Simple Syndication">RSS</acronym>-Dev group, and I may have missed something but I  have not seen any such discussion. I have seen however, the preference for <acronym title="Really Simple Syndication">RSS</acronym> 1.0 for robust <acronym title="Really Simple Syndication">RSS</acronym> models, particularly in the scientific communities.  Not sure why ATOM needs to be compared to <acronym title="Really Simple Syndication">RSS</acronym> 1.0, either you care about <acronym title="Resource Description Framework">RDF</acronym> or you don't. In you do not, then Atom is a choice. I feel <acronym title="Resource Description Framework">RDF</acronym> has not come into its own yet but it will someday very soon. Just thoughts.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

