On 9 Nov 2004, at 16:53, Dare Obasanjo wrote:
Argument from authority and conjecture don't hold much weight in technical discussions. Guessing that Tim Berners-Lee and the W3C would be on your side in a debate isn't any way of convincing people of the technical merits of your argument.
Arguments from authority do have some weight when you look at the landscape in which you are moving. I trust Tim Berner's Lee has not invented all of RDF and would not be pushing it the way he does if a simple solution could have done just as well. If I play chess with Kasparov, and he tells me that I would be better off not moving my pawn in a certain place, then I will listen, even though I may not understand, even though it may take me a few years of study (if not more) to understand.
So I don't want to get in the permathread of whether RSS2.0 extensions are ok. I believe everyone understands that RDF gives us all we need. There may be other weaker mechanisms, but if we try to find these we may never get this spec out of the door. So I say lets go with the best.
Secondly I ask you to look at my proposal, and see if it works from within its own perspective. Forget about RSS2.0. I am proposing that we tweak what we have just enough, so that it could be turned into RDF.
I AM NOT SAYING THAT WE SHOULD MAKE THE CURRENT SPEC BE RDF! (see solution A)
Just that we should allow write it in such a way that people who want to extend it can use that very well documented extension mechanism.
In fact if you look carefully:
MY SOLUTION DOES NOT EXCLUDE AN RSS2.0 TYPE EXTENSION MECHANISM EITHER!
Henry Story
