Danny Ayers wrote:
"Said of a system (e.g., program, file format, programming language, protocol, etc.) designed to easily allow the addition of new features at a later date, e.g. through the use of hooks, an API or plug-ins."
So you can't do that with RSS2 or Atom?
Does RSS 1.0 allow this? Yes, without a doubt, there is a complete
supporting framework/language in which it is straightforward to define
extensions on the same level as RSS (RDF/RDFS) or by building layers
on top (OWL, rules etc).
Yes, but you can't use your standard RDF serializer to write the RSS1.
The language is pluggable, there are hooks. In human language terms, you can define new words based largely on existing definitions, though they will usually also have additional domain-specific meaning.
It is possible to understand RDF yet not want to use it.
Does Atom allow this? That remains to be seen. Personally I'm hopeful that we've got past the assumption that namespaces alone will save us, and that we (will) have usable hooks which will make the format & protocol genuinely extensible, rather than just inheriting an 'X' in the title.
OK, fair enough. How about
<entry xmlns="http://purl.org/atom/ns#draft-ietf-atompub-format-03"; xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#";> <title>Atom-Powered Robots Run Amok</title> <link href="http://example.org/2003/12/13/atom03"/> <id>vemmi://example.org/2003/32397</id> <updated>2003-12-13T18:30:02Z</updated> <rdf:RDF>...</rdf:RDF> </entry>
This is just like RSS1, except there's a URI identifying the entry, and the syntax defaults to XML literals. Also, you can use your standard RDF serializer to write your statements. Of course, you'll have to use an actual RDF parser to get them back out.
Robert Sayre
