On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 16:07:11 +0000, Graham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 16 Dec 2004, at 1:53 pm, Danny Ayers wrote:
> 
> > What if they receive multiple, non-identical versions of the same
> > entry from different sources?
> > Admittedly there isn't a conflict resolution defined for core RSS 1.0
> > components, e.g. where only a single value is mandated, but for
> > extensions (which we are talking about here) the RDF model is clear
> > (there is no conflict).
> 
> Well you have 2 (or 3) choices:
> 1. Use the newer entry
> 2. a) Mix all the elements in one <entry> container
> or b) as a), but remove duplicately named elements.
> 
> Option 1 requires app-specific knowledge, which RDF can't help you
> with. Neither 2a or 2b will necessarily produce valid results, but
> again, I'm not aware of a feature in RDF that will help.

What helps in RDF is that according to the model, there is no such
ambiguity at the common language level - there are no choices. This
provides independence, orthogonality between the message-passing and
the application-level interpretation.

For example, say the following came from sourceA:

<item>
   <xx:season>Spring</xx:season>
</item>

the following from sourceB:

<item>
   <xx:season>Summer</xx:season>
</item>

assuming both items have the same id (however expressed), everything
else removed for clarity

The RDF interpretation would be two statements, which could be wrapped
back up into pseudo-RSS as:

<item>
   <xx:season>Spring</xx:season>
   <xx:season>Summer</xx:season>
</item>

The RDF/XML interpretation mechanism provides clear communication of
data within a known data model. It's an unambiguous message in this
model. What the application does with it is another matter - it's a
different layer. But without such a mechanism, the choices are back
down at the level of XML syntax, there isn't even a domain-specific
grammar to draw on.

> (also please don't use the word "receive", we request things around
> here)

I'd suggest this all occurs above the wire protocol, but ok, I'll try not to ;-)

Cheers,
Danny.


-- 

http://dannyayers.com

Reply via email to