Dave Pawson.  link

Atom, blogging et al

On standards

Joe Gregario helps clear up what a proposed standard is in IETF speak. He goes on to explain the next steps. Thanks Joe. I like the way his blog uses technorati tags as his keywords. Except I'm less keen on technorati as a way of saying 'this is what I mean by X'. syndication from technorati, or ... drat. I can't get wordnet to play ball. I've seen rdf where the url links to the word. Try the people interface and it sulks after about 4 uses. Anyone know the url syntax? Anyway, just because someone tags up a post with a term, how does that help me understand what Joe meant by it? That doesn't make much sense to me.

Burning Bird is another American itching about the price of petrol (gas) for her car. I wonder how they would react to one UK pound per litre? Would they all start walking? Get used to it America, it seems these prices could well be with us for a long while.

Atom Extensions

Dan Brickley goes on at length with some logic, about using rdf instead of namespacing, to extend Atom. I skimmed it. Then I studied it. Pulling a few comments from that post. If I read it right, the two sides of the argument are: quote. When someone designs an XML vocabulary, the things they name and describe in their namespace are XML elements and attributes. and So we end up with committees and groups inventing XML markup, and their primary means of expression is the ability to say, basically, which XML elements can live inside which other XML elements, in what order, and which attributes they are allowed to be decorated with. . end quote. This is the namespace approach. For the other side he writes. quote. In the rdf case, the vocabulary is described in terms of the world; you say things like "'wrote' is a relationship between an 'Agent' and a 'Work'", or "'JPEGImage' is a sub-class of 'Image'"; end quote. Is it just me? Those two don't seem to me to be interchangeable? With an XML vocabulary I can write, as I am doing now, simple prose. The rdf approach.... I could make simple statements relating two items, or make assertions or statements about a thing. Can I waffle on in rdf, as I am now? I don't think so.

Dan goes on about EXIF and Bibligraphic metadata, CV's and photo descriptions. How can these be talked about with rdf? I'm willing to be convinced, but neither the prose of the dochead, nor the tables of the datahead seem amenable to shoehorning into the world of rdf.

The comparison of the XML model (element nesting and attribute decorations) and the use of real world terms of rdf makes for a very clear picture to me. Going much beyond that I find difficult.

Recent conversations have been about a low barrier to entry into blogging. I think Google's approach provides this. I wonder if Dan could provide a low barrier to entry based around extensions using rdf?

The corporate blog

Why bother?

If needed, establish a corporate policy on blogging. Lay out the groundrules, but don't make them too restrictive. Sun has published these as their policy. IBM similarly encourages their 320,000 employees to post with these guidelines. If the blog is open to the public, ensure users make it clear that the content is their own view, not that of the organization. Scoble of course has something to say. I think it's worth reading. Especially the bit about telling the truth.

Blogs should have comments. I guess this applies far more to public blogs than internal ones. Or does it? A survey summarises the findings, encouraging feedback which could develop into a more informative n view discussion. The survey also concludes

I noticed that some blogs do not allow the readers to leave comments. This sends a bad message to customers, because it seems like the company does not want to hear from their customers.

I don't have the facilities to provide feedback due to the way I publish.

Keywords: atom

Comments (View)

Return to main index