[whatwg] Link rot is not dangerous

[Geoffrey Sneddon]

On 16 May 2009, at 07:08, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:

> Geoffrey Sneddon Fri May 15 14:27:03 PDT 2009
>
>> On 15 May 2009, at 18:25, Shelley Powers wrote:
>>
>> > One of the very first uses of RDF, in RSS 1.0, for feeds, is  
>> still  > in existence, still viable. You don't have to take my  
>> word, check it > out yourselves:
>> >
>> > http://purl.org/rss/1.0/
>>
>> Who actually treats RSS 1.0 as RDF? Every major feed reader just  
>> uses  a generic XML parser for it (quite frequently a non-namespace  
>> aware one) and just totally ignores any RDF-ness of it.
>
> What does it mean to "treat as RDF"? An "RSS 1.0" feed is  
> essentially a stream of "items" that has been lifted from the  
> page(s) and placed in an RDF/XML feed. When I read e.g. http://www.w3.org/2000/08/w3c-synd/home.rss 
>  in Safari, I can sort the news items according to date, source,  
> title. Which means - I think - that Safari sees the feed as "machine  
> readable".  It is certainly possible to do more - I guess, and  
> Safari does the same to non-RDF feeds, but still. And search engines  
> should have the same opportunities w.r.t. creating indexes based on  
> "RSS 1.0" as on RDFa. (Though here perhaps comes in between the fact  
> that search engines prefers to help us locate HTML pages rather than  
> feeds.)

I mean using an RDF processor, and treating it as an RDF graph.  
Everything just creates from an XML stream (or object model) a bunch  
of items with a certain title, date, and description, and acts on that  
(and parses it out in a format specific manner, so it creates the same  
sort of item for, e.g., Atom) — it doesn't actually use an RDF graph  
for it. If you can find any widely used software that actually treats  
it as an RDF graph I'd be interested to know.


--
Geoffrey Sneddon
<http://gsnedders.com/>
<http://simplepie.org/>