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.