Print

Print


Ray,

My guess is that majority of weblogging platforms support this,
although I don't know necessarily about retrieval of the URN from the
feed.  I _do_ think, however, that they respect the notion of
uniqueness and persistence.

-Ross.

On Dec 4, 2007 9:21 AM, Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>
> Ross - The ATOM id element seems fairly demanding.  In your opinion how many
> implementations actually conform, both in letter and spirit?
>
> --Ray
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Ross Singer
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
> Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 11:05 PM
> Subject: Re: Say NO to mandatory Atom Feeds
>
>
> On Dec 3, 2007 4:24 PM, Dr R. Sanderson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > Amen.
> >
> > Also, the semantics of what they're actually describing aren't the
> > clearest.
> > The <id> element, for example, is not dc:identifier for the object
> > described in the data, it's an arbitrary id of that particular entry in
> > that particular feed. (As I understand it)
> >
> > Which makes perfect sense in an ATOM feed. And is totally meaningless in
> > SRU.
> >
> Well, no.  From:
> http://www.atomenabled.org/developers/syndication/#requiredEntryElements
>
> id      Identifies the entry using a *universally unique and permanent
> URI*. Suggestions on how to make a good id can be found here. Two
> entries in a feed can have the same value for id if they represent the
> same entry at different points in time.
>
> So, what this means is that every search result would have a unique
> and permanent URI, to which I say "hallelujah!" but you might not be
> as overjoyed.
>
> It might be a lot of work, but it's by no stretch of the imagination
> "meaningless".
>
> -Ross.