Re: Why is RDF hard?

Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

From: Edd Dumbill (
Date: Tue Aug 15 2000 - 11:18:39 PDT

On Tue, Aug 15, 2000 at 10:53:20AM -0700, Dave Winer wrote:
> Edd, I disagree that RSS should become RDF.
> Now, where do we go from there?
> I acknowledge your right to have your ideas tested in the market. But doing
> it this way, by taking the name RSS 1.0, that doesn't leave much room for
> difference of opinion, does it?
> In other words, if you're right, and RDF is the right way to go, it should
> succeed on its own merits not by taking the name of something that has been
> successful on its own without any help from RDF.
But RSS 0.9 was RDF, and that was the way they wanted to go, see

As I understand it, several of the RDF folk then left Netscape. One of
them, R.V. Guha, is a co-author of the new proposal.

And it is actually touted as a "proposal". One of the work items could
well be "change the name", why not post to the new rss-dev mailing list
to propose that!

-- Edd

Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Aug 15 2000 - 11:23:20 PDT