June 2003 Archives

Tim Bray writes:

I am worried about the next-gen syndication process rooted in Sam’s Wiki is in danger of going seriously off the rails, because some of the participants have got the loony idea that it’s about trying to invent new technology or improve RSS.

What the Echo-that-was project should be about picking the stuff that’s already been proven to work and be interoperable, and writing it down in a clean, clear way, and arranging for the specification to be clearly out of the clutches of any vendor.

He then goes on to conclude:

In the Wiki, people are madly flinging proposals for radical new capabilities against the wall, like content-by-reference, and multiple-URIs-per-author and so on and so on ad nauseum and I’ll translate that Latin for free, it means to the puking point. Please stop.

Well put Tim. I have to agree. I've been a bit put off by some of the discussion and direction the Wiki has taken recently also. As I noted earlier when I proposed we consider the use of the Dublin Core that there seems to be a unhealthy desire to reinvent the wheel instead of working from the stuff that we have and building from there.

It not that the prior art is completely broken and worthless, as much as they are stuck in neutral – meaning not going forward – without clarification and some neutral less politically charged ground. So far that's been achieved. Let's

And for petesake can we settle on a name and quick wasting cycles on this!

(In case you missed, it was learned that Echo is the name of a Java application framework. Sam asked that projects leads if they cared and they said yes, they do. It's back to the drawing board now.)

UPDATE: Sam Ruby weighs in and has started an interesting thread on Bray's post with dicussion of what should and shouldn't be included in the core.

The Echo wiki has been nothing short of amazing and the result good so far, but I'm not terribly thrilled with the Echo Example syntax proposals that have been posted recently. They seem a bit unfocused. I think what's that consensus is missing on the principle the syntax will be built on and would provide better clarity and focus to the discussion if established. The proposals are up though and I can deal with that – even if following it makes my head hurt.

My concern is that the primary proposal seem like a reinvention of the wheel in many ways. Conceptually the elements of an entry can be expressed in RSS. The elements also have near perfect alignment with the those in the Dublin Core Metadata Element Set. (Which is good in that it validates the analysis the group thus far.) Granted expressing Echo in Dubline Core doesn't mean we're all done, but I don't know why we would leverage this type of prior art more extensively. Dublin Core is in use by a lot of other systems and formats then RSS. I find it puzzling that it has been passed over or abandoned so quickly.

Wikis are not for the meek so I've posted my rough examples there. I also thought I post a copy here also. (Who knows what may happen to it once the wiki way gets to it). Feedback is welcome. Just use the wiki.

UPDATE: Ken McLeod points out that there is a complimentary DublinCore page on the wiki that provides background information and links on its use in Echo. (Let the Refactoring begin!)

Originally posted to EchoExampleInDublinCore

The propsal contains some examples and discussion to how Echo could leverage this Dublin Core Metadata Element Set in its syntax.

NOTE: This proposal would fold the Dublin Core semantics/labels into the core Echo namespace not create a seperate modulized namesapce. The use of dc: in the text below is meant to clarify what is coming from Dublin Core and what is not.

Dublin Core elements are already in common used within RSS feeds to supplement the core item elements of title, description and link. The Dublin Core has corresponding elements for rss:title and rss:description, but a specific tag for (perma)link is not explictedly defined. The dc:source tag can reasonable be considered the links counterpart in the Dublin Core. So with the Dublin Core you can assemble what almost looks like an RSS feed item.

Looking at the Echo ConceptualModel, all of the required elements and many of the highly-recommended optional elements have corresponding elements to the Dublin Core. Further clarifications and restraints are likely needed in the context of Echo's use For example, accordingly to the Dublin Core documentation, dc:source is said to be A Reference to a resource from which the present resource is derived. The present resource may be derived from the Source resource in whole or in part. Recommended best practice is to identify the referenced resource by means of a string or number conforming to a formal identification system. In Echo the formal identification system would be a URL/permalink.

Another example is the dc:creator and dc:publisher elements. Currently these elements are just strings. Echo may further defined their format and content, optionally allowing for additional meta rich extensions such as FOAF to be substituted.

Echo would also benefit from defining maximum lengths and element optionality.

PROS

 * Leverages prior art
 * Leverages an international standard
 * Is not a radical departure from RSS today

CONS
Tag naming my not always be ideal
Additional clarification and restraints are needed
* Elements may not be as meta rich as preferred

These examples illustrate what such an approach for Echo may look like. It assumes that the Dublin Core namespace (http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/) is part of the default namespace. These elements are wrapped in a container tag of entry. Content is embedded using the root or container tag of the native format (assuming it can be expressed in well formed XML). Alternatively a content:encoded with CDATA encoding could be used to embed non-well formed textual content. Binary sources should not be embedded, but reference via a dc:related link.

Core ConceptualModel Entry


<entry>
<source>http://www.example.org/archives/000000.html</source>
<creator>Paul Harrison (http://www.example.org)</creator> 
<date>2003-06-25T10:42:00-04:00</date>
<body xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<p>A do try alone, my your you with get on friends.  a my my, out from 
get. And i i your you're my do high. Think not from it you lend going 
a friends sang you. Be, lend away love little little. I because, to i
ears, end, from do tune, alone a your help. Friends, i out, out get 
little, on if little of with my. Of of do a to key i get a my no sang 
is. Think <a href="http://www.foo.com/">help with what you sang</a> 
help a by i a how what get tune does because friends. Do do help tune, 
sad are when my from, feel own, sing a, you me the what get friends a.</p> 
</body>
</entry>

Extended ConceptualModel Entry


<entry>
<title>With a Little Help From My Friends</title>
<description>You a, you're get. Do my with. What with how think, sad 
on would  how you try own a if by help and a i sang.</description>
<source>http://www.example.org/archives/000000.html</source>
<creator>Paul Harrison (http://www.example.org)</creator> 
<date>2003-06-25T10:42:00-04:00</date>
<related>http://www.bar.net/000000.html</related>
<related>http://www.baz.org/hello.html</related>
<body xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<subject>hello world</subject>
<identifier>1056595208</identifier>
<rights>Copyright 2003 Paul Harrison</rights>
<p>A do try alone, my your you with get on friends.  a my my, out from 
get. And i i your you're my do high. Think not from it you lend going 
a friends sang you. Be, lend away love little little. I because, to i
ears, end, from do tune, alone a your help. Friends, i out, out get 
little, on if little of with my. Of of do a to key i get a my no sang 
is. Think <a href="http://www.foo.com/">help with what you sang</a> 
help a by i a how what get tune does because friends. Do do help tune, 
sad are when my from, feel own, sing a, you me the what get friends a.</p> 
</body>

Sam's wiki discussion continues full throttle. We have a name – it's Echo. Numerous people are in support of the roadmap. SixApart, Blogger and LiveJournal have all said they support this effort. Even logos are appearing. Excellent.

Trying to follow it is a full time job which has my head hurting and too spent to for words or any real interesting analysis. Shelley Powers makes an excellent post to summarize the action so far:

One only has to look at the change log to see the number of edits to realize that this is not an evironment for the cautious, the tame, or the wiki-challenged (or for those who want to sleep or eat, either). I'm not necessarily cautious or tame, but I do raise my hand for being wiki-challenged. Still, there are points that are solidifying out at the wiki, and I thought to duplicate these here in a format that, if nothing else, will help me understand what it's all about.

Well put Shelley and thank you. My head hurts a little bit less after reading your well done summary. The discussion of what is known as Echo has become been engrossing to the point of being detrimental to any other work and what's left of my personality.

Our favorite deity Clay Shirky made a brief appearance on the Echo wiki today and wrote:

Right now, the conversation looks muddled, because a lot of questions that were asked and answered in the development of RSS itself (it should be 7 bit; it should be represented in XML; _required_ metadata should be kept at a minimum; it should not try to be an input to the Semantic Web) are coming up again, to no good effect, imo.

In his reply Sam Ruby makes an interesting reply that intruiges me a lot more then the rest of the syntax discussions: One possible use of this analysis would be to produce a proper usage profile of RSS.

The conversation and collaboration on the Echo wiki has been nothing short of amazing and the result good so far, but I am curious to whether this loose fast paced collaboration can produce something practical.

In a comment on his weblog, Sam writes the pace does seem dizzying at the moment. I would like to see the result be something that we would feel comfortable living with for quite some time.

Agreed. We shall see where this sometimes wild ride takes us.

Phase 2 Roadmap.

| No Comments | No TrackBacks

Sam Ruby writes:

A week ago I quietly introduced a wiki to discuss the anatomy of a well formed log entry. It got a lot of interest. And a week later, it is still being actively developed.

Wow. It seems that I am not the only one desiring a bit of forward motion in this area.

Amen Sam. There has been some great progress towards consensus and clarity on the matter which is exciting. As I mentioned in my last post discussion has been generally conceptual and that the discussion needs to move forward to the next more concrete phase. And move forward it will! A roadmap has been post here. I think this is the logical way to go next and continue this great effort.

Update: I've posted a similar post here on my O'Reilly weblog.

As the discussion on Sam Ruby's Well Formed Log Entry wiki has progressed a certain amount of consensus and clarity is forming. Here is my summary of the key requirements being discussed.

Post date. There are 3 types of timestamps used in weblog systems today. Created-on, Last-Modified and Publication timestamps. Publication timestamp (or post date) is the most important and thereby required element of a well formed log entry. It allows an author to control the ordering of log posts which are ordered chronologically by nature. The publication date is similar in nature to the data on a newspaper or magazine where fo r editorial reasons the content is commonly published before the date on the cover. Created-On and Last Modified timestamps are optional and part of an optional extension module called Authoring which is ties into versioning. The created-on and last-modified dates of the actually representation (the HTML produced when a log entry and template are merged) are outside of the scope of the discussion though they may be used in substitution if a post-create and post-last-modified data are not tracked by the system in use.

Author. One and only one author is required in a well formed post. The author can be a system such as a Wiki or CVS. While post may be developed collaboratively with multiple individuals participating only person or system is the primary author with the remainder optionally listed as contributors.

Permalink. The discussion seems to be nearly consensus though it doesn't seem to have been totally reached. Sam Ruby one of the requirements for the discussion as must be on the Web. Tim Bray wrote a nice post on this topic and versioning that I think (there seems to be some confusion to what the other Tim actually meant) nails it. He writes A log entry's primary identifier should be a URI, just because this is about the Web and if you have a URI you're on it, otherwise not. Permalinks are URIs, but URIs are not necessarily permalinks so some clarification is needed. I think that a permalink should be required and is the primary identifier of a well formed log entry. Bray does seems to indicate similar thinking when he writes In the world of weblog entries, I can't imagine why you'd use an identifier that doesn't double as a locator, so I don't think URNs are particularly relevant. URNs don't necessarily resolve to anything necessarily, so is Bray suggesting that URIs must be permalinks or should be permalinks or neither? Here is the confusion amongst the group. I agree with his conclusion that a URI (permalink?) along with version info that uniquely identifies a well formed entry. The version info is a string whose value can be determined by the author and/or system developer – modified date, digest hash or sequential number.

Content. This area still is the least defined area of the whole discussion. There are still many issues left open and unresolved. Someone better articulated my previous questions and concerns on the context of the content. The answer is it depends whether the log entry is being used in the context of an internal or external model. Here is the explanation as it read as I write this:

An internal model is used by the source or provider of an entry and contains the entire breadth and depth of the entry.

An external model is used to convey information about an entry, possibly up to including the entire breadth and depth of an entry. For sets of entries, an external model may represent sets of entries differently depending on the purpose of the set.

This distinction helps to answer questions like is the content in the entry or available at the permalink, does the permalink point to a rendered presentation of the entry (HTML, image, etc.) or does the permalink point to the entry data (see content and PermaLinks ), and should contact information for the publisher be included.

The answer could be both, depending, then depending can be further clarified.

Internal models are most often used in content-management APIs (RESTlog, CommentAPI, BloggerAPI, MetaWeblogAPI), external models are most often used in meta-data and syndication APIs (TrackBack, RSS, aggregators, portals).

Well put. (I wish I knew who wrote it. The joy of the wiki. Update: The joy of the blog. It was Ken MacLeod.) I think it goes to the heart of why content is the most vague and has the most open issues. It hard to reach consensus when it depends on the context and model in use.

I'm not much for the abstract and have a tendency to start in on concrete application when studying the theoretical. This exercise has been fascinating and sometimes quite a brain twisting learning experience for myself. Fighting my tendencies has been the hardest part. With that bias disclosed, I think its time to move the conversation forward and drill down deeper into the context/models of a well formed log entry.

In related news, Tim Bray contributes another great post on the promise and peril of RSS. All the reason why we need to do this work.

Adina Levin pinged my last entry on the conceptual well formed log entry discussion and said Tim Appnell [sic] is somewhat concerned about the use of the wiki; because people can edit the pages, he's worried that people will go into loops, changing the meaning of content.

That isn't exactly what I meant. What I meant to say (and did rather poorly I suppose) is that a wiki does not sufficiently facilitate discussion over time or communicate reason for the change nor does it alert me to the change which may change the context of the collaboration elsewhere. I have to really dig for it. (Perhaps this is just my experience with MoinMoin the wiki Sam Ruby is using.)

I think Adina comments are right on as to the different modes in a decision cycle. Wikis have their place, but they are greatly enhanced when used in conjunction with comments boards/mailing lists and a weblog. Going forward I believe that there will be closer ties made between the three. This excercise is both proof and insight into the current shortcomings and potential of this space.

Yesterday Sam Ruby opened a wiki to develop a well formed log entry.

Like Tim Bray, I'm not much for abstract discussion, but I'm willing to play along.

This has all been very interesting and undoubtably progress has been made. The development of optional modules is great. Discussion of permalinks and URIs and unique identifiers has also been excellent. Of course, as is human nature, I won't dwell on the good stuff and focus on what bugs me.

While this has been and will continue to be interesting to observer, I'm not sure I'm sold on the use of a wiki. I've become a bit confused trying to follow the evolution of the content and the discussion.

For instance when Sam originally opened the wiki he wrote that the purpose of the wiki was for describing a conceptual data model of what constitutes a well formed log entry. During the course of the day, Aaron Schwarz, exercising the wiki way, modified it to read the conceptual data model of weblog entries. From my viewpoint this change was significant. I thought Sam's use of the word log instead of weblog was deliberate to convey a broader notion of an entry beyond weblogs. The conceptual optional modules that have been added and developed add to the impression that Sam's initial minimum requirements was a core that could be built on.

This was my understanding and I proceeded to comment accordingly. Then I noticed the change in the guidelines for the wiki and became unsure my comments where appropriate on or on target – the scope had seemingly changed. To add to my confusion, the wiki had no clear and immediate way of asking for clarification. (For this I'm falling back on my weblog in hopes some one answers me.) Personally I like Greg Reinacker's suggestion that we think of it as syndicated content.

Being a wiki I could just go in and change Aaron's changes, perhaps I still will, but that doesn't solve the real problem. There seems to be some confusion as to what we are talking about. I make my change. Aaron thinks I'm wrong, because he has a different notion of what the scope of this effort is and changes back. I could disagree and change it again and so on. The wiki way doesn't seem to facilitate the ability to clarify and focus a groups attention.

Also of issue is the context of the well formed log entry. Are we talking about the concept of an entry in a syndication feed or the more general concept of a log entry? Mark Cidade and I went around and around today and it would seem that the two of us are on somewhat different pages. Having discussed the issue of syndication feeds and beyond with Sam for months now so I was under the impression that was the focus of this effort. It was not explicited spelled out (or some one deleted that context) and I sense that context was not understood by Mark. From what I gather Mark was arguing the general notion of content that can take any form. I could be mistaken though.

This confusion from the rapid and easily evolved effort has lead me to seek answers:

  • Are we speaking about weblog entries or a more general notion that transcends weblogs to what Greg Reinacker refers to as syndicated content?
  • What is meant by content in the minimum requirements? What relationship does that content have to the required permalink? What do you link and what do you embed?

Assuming we are a) talking about the conceptual entry in a syndication feed and b) that the permalink points to more from the source, I feel strongly that some type of textual description (title/excerpt etc.) is required.

The discussion continues.

Matthew Berk: Digital Self Fashioning.

Digital Self Fashioning Defined: A framework for understanding… (missed the rest)

Catalysts: Community is a borrowed metaphor; wanted to optimize for the medium. Example: movie sites. Not sales Example: personals. Offline vector. Rich repositories.

Other frameworks for Digital Self-Represerntation. Anthropomorpic (what a word) approaches: Avatars. Visual embodiement. Metaphors. Topological constructions. Network as an extension of place. Conversational interation Virtual extension of community.

The Political Backdrop:
Freedom of the self: Boundry transcendence. Extended communities.
Alientation of the self: Loss of presence

What is Self Fashioning?
Technologies of the self Usually takes the form of writing. Self is defined by documents.
Double construction of the person. People explicitly act to fashion their identities. At the same time, they are fashioned by their context.

What is Content? Human-legible destiny of data, information resources. Possesses structure within, between. Can enrich, cement ties between people, groups of people.

Digital Self Fashioning: The Rules
On the Internet, people constitue themselves as assemblies of content
The more structure in between this content, the greater its action potential
Content, like identity, is always plural, differential

Blogs: Technology of the Self
Pure expression of content management application. Few metaphors. Markup independent.
Tool for Self fashioning. Self as content container, relay. Community as network of interlinked content.

There are no legacy formats. Weblogs are by definition networked. Under the hood is a syndication engine that makes content portable and malable.

Digital Self Fashioning. How people constitue themselves online.

Phil Windley's notes

Jason Shellen: Where Weblogs Matter

Write. Read. Connect.

What is a blog post? An atomic unit of individual expression. Its the most granular we can get. There is always an audience. Digital photos from phones. (Moblogging.) Audio. http://audioblogger.com/

Avid readers are clamoring for another way to read weblogs. Aggregators. Shellen is showing us NewzCrawler. He's shifted to the Read It To Me service which will read your blogs.

Connect. BlogRolls. Google. Shellan says for the last time: GOOGLE IS NOT REMOVING BLOGS FROM THEIR SEARCH ENGINE. Some one from the audience asked that Shellen repeat the line Orlofsky is an asshole. He was too kind and did not, but did mention that Evan Williams had a good response.

Blogs for Business? Remember what the Cluetrain Meanifesto says: Speak in a human voice. I hate when an entity talks.

Blogs as Community: Have been around a long time – especially in Internet time. What we know today picked up steam in 1999. Shellen is walking us throw some weblog community: MetaFilter. BoingBoing. Other weblogs have a single author but there is community. Doc Searls, Jason Kottke. Kottke made a post on the Matrix and opened comments. Shellen reports its up to 400+ comments. There are people speaking out to say I read this blog.

Does Joni Mitchell have a blog? They paved paradise and put up a parking lot.

Shellen is showing some examples of good blogging and nit picking and few things wrong.

Who is using blogging? External: Macromedia. Groove. MSNBC.
Internal: Cisco Systems. Sun Microsystems. Stanford University.

Blogs are a great way of establishing yourself as a perceived expert in the fields. Shellen is showing VentureBlog as a good example of weblog in business.

Another weblog example. http://loosetooth.com/: I am the economy. Please stimulate me.

Eating your own dog food. B.I.G. Blogger In Google. Shellen is howing screenshots of their internal blog which is running on the next generation of Blogger code.

Google Saved My Dog from Google love notes. Internal.

They don't have a product per se yet, but Shellen says are thinking about the Blogger appliance.

Blogging – this push button publishing – has changed the way content is authored online.

Weblogs: New Syndication Models or Uncontrolled Platforms

David Shnaider moderators a panel with Rafat Ali (PaidContent.org), Jeff Jarvis (Advance.net), Elizabeth Spiers (Gawker.com), and Vin Crosbie (Digital Deliverence).

Shnaider points out an article on blogging and Gwaker in the NY Times and likens it to Woodstock the movie where that guy gets up shaking a newspaper and exclaims its the NY Times and where in it! Despite our issues with traditional we have a sense of pride and accomplishment when people notice.

Jeff Jarvis steps up to the mike.

Why Weblogs work. My yard. Linking means the cream rises to the top. Interactivity improves quality.

Weblogs can make a difference.

What makes the better? Speed. Variety. Voices. Tools. Interactivity.

Weblogs are nothing magical. Its the fastest cheapest publishing tools with widest distribution ever. Community. Nanomedia. Advertising. Personal.

Webloggers are influencers. Forget pitch.

Jarvis notes that I thinkits a mistake that AOL and Yahoo are not here.

Elizabeth Spiers takes over now. She notes that Nic Denton is editing Gawker these past two days and ask everyone to send email statins how bad its been these days. (Audience laughs.) Spiers is talking about the reaction of mass media to Gawker. Its gotten a lot of attention.

She tells a story about NY Post's Page Six gossip column. Some months back she noticed that 5 of the 9 items they published where posted on Gwaker the day before. She recently met some of that team and joked with them that they where stealing her stuff and one of them said Yeah, it makes my work so much easier.

Says she has never read a press release where she didn't wish she had that 30 seconds back. Engage bloggers on a very personal level. Don't send them a press release. Speak to them about something that they said.

Rafat Ali from PaidContent.org is now up. Blogging for trade magazine.
The profit motive for a formal operation is too high
The open-source ethic
Google – repeat 100 time before going to bed.
Honesty/Neutrality: Understand what's you're not: a consultant.

Strategic relationships are next.

From Rafat's former boss Jason Calacanis: Blog database research reports = big business, blog plus nothing = a hobby. Blogs have killed the newsletter business. Rafat notices that Silicon Alley Reporter is dead and his PaidContent site is its replacement to some degree.

Vic Crosbie is now up. Lewis & Clarke. Charles Darwin. Henry David Thoreau. They all wrote journals. You can bet your ass they would a weblog if they where around. Can you imagine if Lewis and Clarke photoblogging their expedition? This is what we will call Buffalo.

Keeping a journal is human nature. So is publishing that journal.

Accuracy & Honesty, no conflict. Then blogging is journalism.

Blogging is not assigned but by enthusiasm and expertise.

Media will use Blogs. Do it not for profitability, but as a service and strategic necessity. The smart media prganizations have already begun blogging.

The Law Of The Blog

Mark Young (PARTNERS+simons) leads a panel of Denies Howell (Reed Smith Crosby Heafey, John Palfrey (Harvard Law School), Arik Hesseldahl (Forbes.com) Catherine Reuden (Robinson & Cole LLP) and Maurice Ringel (Ringel Law Group).

(My commentary: You can tell these are the lawyers. All men in suit and tie and women in business attire. Young is not wearing a tie, but I think I see it hanging out of his pocket.)

Howell tells the story of a colleague that had a woman in the file room blogging. Her firm did not have any web presence that when you Googled the law firm you got this weblog as the number one link. The problem is the blogger had less then glowing comments of what was happening in the law firm and off color personal fantasies about one of the married associates. Business' must choose

Interaction is the root of all litigation.

She is going over the legal considerations that expose a business to risk.

John Palfry is up. Internet law in the US is a mess. You have to hire a lawyer. You need to be prepared. People are going to do stuff that will make you wonder if you are doing the right thing.

Catherine Rueben is speaking. Blogs are good for the web. Original content, syndicated, is a good thing. Manage your copyright up front. Creative commons needs to be synced up and baked in. Shellen mentions from the audience his concern that people are assigning right that they do not understand and cannot legally take back. Palfry says education is needed.

An employer learns something through a weblog. Employees bad mouthing the company are an issue. Employer are not bound or subject by free speech. Free speech refers to asks of state. Confidental information is not allowed to be disclosed as free speech.

Dos and Don'ts.

Employees: Not on company time. Do not reveal your employer. Don't write anything potential employer would see. DO NOT sign those form confidential forms. They are too restictive. Employees have more bargining power. Agreements are commonally everything you breath on is ours. Your employer owns that. NLR allows for protective concerted activity – WE think the pay stinks here.

Employers: Have a confidentiality agreement. Don't use a form. Have a policy specifically on weblogs. Talk with your intelligectual property about ownership of IA and tone down who owns what. Employers cannot terminate for any reasons.

Maurice Ringel is speaking. Weblogging (in business) may be subject to regulation because they may be a form of advertising.

Young notes that we are probably glazed over. (Correct.) The problem is that lawyers are seen as the can't do people. Lawyers need to have a can do attitude. (My commentary: that would be VERY nice.)

Arik Hesseldahl is speaking. He states for the record that he is not a lwayer. He has every word he writes reviewed by lawyers. Make friends with lawyers when you have to deal with them. Its good to know who you call.

Hesseldahl takes us through some some examples of journalists running into trouble with their employers over weblogging. Most examples are where a journalists had a blog very similar to what they are covering for them.

If you are challenge the establishment you have to be ready to deal with the legal issues. What constitues a fact? Be sure to be able to backup your statements and be constitent to what you call a fact over time.

Tony Perkins: The Open Source Media Movement

I took a long lunch and I'm late to this one. Tony runs AlwaysOn and is taking questions. The questions are mostly about around how he balances a traditional publication style in a blogging media format. AlwaysOn has gotten sponsorship through large technology stalwarts such as Sun, Accenture, Novell and Microsoft. The conversation has been a little bit tense.

Heath Row is a transcribing machine and got it all here

Using Weblogs In Large IT Organizations

Phil Windley leads a panel of Paul Perry (Verizon), Rock Regan (State of Connecticut), Tim Ireland (Bloggerheads), Martin Roell and Bill Seitz.

During introductions the topic of knowledge management (KM) and knowledge capture keeps coming up. Cost saving is also prevelent.

Bill Seitz thinks a Wiki-style format is better for collaborative interactions then a weblog. Seitz also says when a crisis occurs it's just the end of an illusion.

Blogs for Project Management

Traction Software allows for users to control how often they are notified with a digest email message.

Paul Perry has had good success inside of Verizon. Had to get the CIO on board.

Regan says his biggest struggles was with middle management. Knowledge is power. They are using weblogs tools for knowledge capture. They desperately want to use it for project management. Huge budget and cut backs. They desperately need to capture knowledge because of the changes.

Phil Windley says Weblogs require a culture about them. A culture of candor. Organizations that are open to the truth. People have to feel that sharing is the right thing to do and the best thing to do.

Bill Zeitz points out that the transparency of candor get things out in the open and may expose some conflicts. He says its better then the simmering conflict that is common in organizations where staff feels they are victims and slaves to their environment. Flames are a manifestation of larger organization issues.

Perry reports that in his organization, very technical people didn't want to post until they say others post. Leeting people find their own voice is crucial. He does not see any additional candor though. Complex issues or a certain level of trust requires face to face conversation and a self-organizational circles of trust to form rather then blogs. The size of Verizon is an issue.

Seitz says it can helps visionaries fill in the blanks that they can't see. Its takes though and makes it more explicit. A little bit more structure in your communication then email and IMs.

Regan says they are starting to see the beginning of some great discussion, but its too early to report. They think they have start to identify ways to save money. Weblogs have started these meaningful discussion across groups that haven't communicated well (or at all) before.

Perry speaks of starting people off weblogging and once the information getting entered into systems later refining it further. He encourages them to use a wiki to summary a topic for themselves. This way they are ready for getting up to speed before going into a meeting or something later. He thinks its important. He thinks the two (Wikis and Weblogs) need to be part of one package.

Perry continues: This stuff is about the real world and is constantly changing and evolving. When you build a system like this the tendency is to dedicate one person to the effort of knowledge capture. The person you pick may be good at it, but they may want to do something else that they are also good at. He believes in distributing it across the group is more important.

Live Blogging

Christopher Lydon is professing his love for Dave Winer. He says he's the Dave Winer without the money, the mind, or the corporate experience etc.

He has misgivings about where our nation is going. Used to run a talk radio show called The Connection. Lydon is tells the story of Amber from Boston a regular caller to his show that would take on and nail people to the wall like William Saffaire and Gore Vidale. Amber was a well-educated, under-privledged waffe of an illegal immgrant that was making a difference. Amber is the ideal blogger. He wants his blog world to be a place for people like Amber.

Points out the problem from Iraq. We went to war with a coountry we don't know. We (the US) knows shit about the world. The English knew the world they had artists, explorers and so on all over the world that would bring the culture and understanding back.

Calling the Jayson Blair issue to light. We don't believe. What we are seeing is that mass media may not be the best way to communicate.

He says: We could together something better then the NY Times. The culture of the candor is priceless. The NY Times was never about candor.

I've misquoted people in the NY Times. I'm sorry. I've been misquoted in the NY Times. We need to learn to live in a more open media society.

Wants to define a radio broadcast around blogging. Wants to know how to define it. Discussion ensues. See Heath for more.

5 Experts/5 Opinions What's Your Questions?

Kathleen Goodwin leads the closing panel of Dave Winer (Userland/Harvard), Tony Perkins (AlwaysOn), Rebecca Lieb (Internet.com) and Jason Shellan (Blogger/Google).

Will weblogs be any different then spam? Lieb says yes because weblog is harder to setup and weblogs are pulled not pushed. Winer notes that porn sites try and spam through weblogs to improve a Google rank. Shellen is not as optimistic that spam in weblogs will not happen. Shellen paraphrases David Weinberger – you're looking at the wrong end if you think the Internet is over.

Do you think people are blogging so they can say they are blogging? Winer doesn't think so. He thinks its silly question. Do you think email tools will integrate into weblog tools? Lieb thinks that people do blog to say they do. She likens them to Saturday night goths. It takes staying power to blog says Shellen. It would make it easier to write if there was a response encouraging them to keep writing. (What happened to the email question?)

What defines a weblog? What is a business blog?Winer starts, he asks is it the style of the writing or the technical features? He found it the style. He defines it as the unedited voice of the individual. That rule can be broken though. Shellen says, refering back to his keynote, its the atomic units of personal expression. Parts of AlwaysOn can be said to be a weblog. Lieb answering the business blog part as an unofficial way to futher a defined agenda. (?) She believes it needs to be an open loop.

What are the two to three thing that need to happen for business to adopt it. Blogging needs to happen in education especially higher education says Winer. It can happen. Perkins points out Sun hoteling office and the use of weblogs for executive management to communicate vision and strategy as a promising trend. Shellen encourages some to take risk. He encourages a liberal intereptation of what the legal panel said. If you listen to hard you'll be so scared you'll run from the building. Lieb stresses the cultural control issues in business that will be a hurdle she names businesses like Disney, record companies and so on.

From the audience, Anil Dash refutes Lieb statement that some industry will not blog. Anil knows there are people blogging in each of these industries. He said you forget what an effective communication medium these tools are.

Shellen stresses bloggings individual space and personal space that it provides.

Perkins points out that Winer is criticizing him and saying that he does not have a blog on AlwaysOn yet no one can agree on a definition.

A member from the audience points out that the experts are wasting our time with a religious debate. He says now is our opportunity to turn blogging technology into something real for business.

Lieb says weblogging gives voice to passion. That's not always the case in business. Those who do have passion will gain from this.

A question on the creative commons is raised. Winer says he works with lawyers now and they say there is no way to publish something that isn't copyrighted. There are very pragmatic reasons for the creative commons.

Denise Howell points out that there are a few hundred lawyers blogging now and are involved out of their own self interest. Creative commons is also very excessible. She also notes the Ben Hammersley's Lazyblog is a good place to get feedback.

In closing, Shellen notes that we are all visionary for being here and realizing weblogging potential. Perkins says AlwaysOn is NOT a blog. The people that post to his site do not know what a blog is or how to do it. He asks do you want it to expand beyond your little cult group? (Asked in jest.) He notes that he's taken a lot of pot shots today, but encourages bloggers to help educate these users. Do you want spread the culture of blogging. Winer thinks we should give every person in the State of New Hamsphire a weblog that the last election doesn't happen again. He thinks anyone who starts blogging is a victory – even if its Blogger or MovableType. Winer also stresses the need for interoperability is key. We have the opportunity to define that now. Will we solve that problem before it happenes? That is the $64K question.

Heath delivers the more detailed transcription

Fin.

Update: Wrap-ups

UPDATE: Day two notes are here.

I'm at the Clickz Weblog Business Strategies Conference that JupiterMedia is producing and will be reporting periodically. This post will be updated often through the day.

WiFi is on and the hotel staff has brough a small floatila of power strip to the are in front of the podium. I'm surrounded by Jason Shellen, Sam Ruby, Doc Searls, David Weinberger, Jeff Jarvis, Anil Dash and Jason Levine.

Michael Gartenberg

Michael Gartenberg start off with Jupiter Research Insight. There is a decline in the creation of personal websites.

Why Weblogs? Rapid communication. Rapid Feedback. Relationships with your audience. Getting the message across. Extend the brand to new audiences. Jupiter is eating their own dog food and have their own analyst weblogs setup. 4k hits a day across the site. Some customers have said that they renewed because of the weblogs.

The web is a tool that enables people to have a life to benefit from the efforts of those who don't - The Register May 2003

The Reality: First Hand Expertise. Traditional Publishing Ego Driven as Well. Opportunity for direct contact to the audience. Customer Centric Communication. Truly a No-Spin Zone. (My commentary: not sure about that last one.)

Lots of Hype. Great for Internal Visibility. Great for External Visibility. Great way to get Fired. Weblogs is a communication medium.

Weblogging in ths business: Keep it modest at first. Go internal before you go external. Ask for permission and not forgiveness. Be ready for the response – you are putting yourself out in a public forum.

Who should Blog? Everyone with something to say. Blog early and Blog often. There are differences between Corporate Weblogs and personal weblogs. In general, keep the cheesecake recipes offline.

Gartenberg's business weblog project timeline: Beta internally. Commit core group of Bloggers. Get at least a week's woth of material. Open for internal review. Internal review. Launch(?)

It is not a medium for enthusiast with too much time and some software.

Now is the time to seize control and do this in your business or else you will cede control because your workers will start doing it.

Dave Winer

Dave's Crib Sheet

Dave asked hwo many people where blogging this event. About 1/3 to ½ raised their hands. (Nearly all on the left side of the room because that's where the powerstrips are.)

Dave is showing us the 24 hours of democracy project he did and asks, is this a weblog? Weblogs should not be limited to external uses. Is there someone in your organization that sends around email a lot with links? They are natural born bloggers in your organization. There is no difference between a blogger and a journalist. Weblogs are not that high a calling. (Laughter.) Journalist are regular people too. Be yourself. Writing about your personal life is fine. Put in the cheescake recipe. It shows some truth about you – perhaps something you don't even understand yourself. Dave says if I was starting a business I would make it a weblog because it would have a competitive advantage. You're in future while they are waiting to make the transition.

Dave disagrees with personal websites are going away. Weblogs are personal websites and they are not going away. The technologist are learning how to make this stuff easier to use. Technologists have a backlog of features.

The discussion has shifted to relationship between weblogging and journalism.

From the audience, Doc Searls points out that he get edited from a professional in Linux Magazine and he gets edited in his weblog by his audience.

Dave says, I want to hear about something from a lot of angles to form my own opinion. Bloggers do not wake up and say I want to put a professional journalists out of a job.

Someone points out the Jayson Blair wouldn't have lasted a month doing what he did. Dave told the NY Times Digital that they need a blogging function and he hopes that they do it. He thinks the NY Times has a bigger problem then just Jayson Blair. He syas they have columnists that pose a journalists. We could talk about [journalism] all day so let's not.

Userland requires all its employees to blog. He says we crossed the line – they had an (unnamed) employee that where not team spirited and they had to have a talk with that individual. Its about trust. They came up with a set of ground rules.

One individual from Microsoft (Jason Shellen says its Beth Goza) just pointed that people say Microsoft should get a clue and when they do they are criticized. (You have our sympathy says Dave.) She states that she is held back by the community. It's her personal blog, but she disclosed that she is an employee of Microsoft and takes a lot of flack. In the real world you are going to get flamed. He salutes her for her courage.

Dave is talking about the evolving laws and what you can and can't speak about in a company. Dan Brickley chimes in.

There are some things worth going to jail for – the first ammendent being one of them. Perhaps we should all have weblogs to perserve free speech.

Idealism – don't knock it if you haven't tried it.

Heath Row
Denise Howell

Are weblogs a threat or opportunity for enterprises?

Kathleen Goodwin leads a panel consisting of Carin Warner (President, Warner Communications), Michael O'Connor Clarke (SVP Weber Shandwick a PR firm – For all intents and purposes I am extinct.), Rick Bruner (Executive Summary Consulting), Jeff Mooney (MediaMap) and Beth Goza of Microsoft.

How do you see personal and public weblogs fitting in to the marketing mix. Beth says that only blogging strategy a marketing department should have is no fixed blogging strategy. May become marketing by default. Weblogs remove the layers between you and your customers. When she reads about Microsoft its somewhat negative (audience laughs). She finds when she meet with people in person there is a very different perseption. Weblogs personalize these big monolithic companies.

Carin Warner chimes in that business weblogs should not be created or destroyed. They should be cultivated and controversial – its the only way to be interesting.

Rick Bruner challenges the notion of weblogs there is a lot of value in weblogs without controversial. Weblogs can be utilitarian – personality isn't necessary. He says ever company should have a weblog in the press and media section.

Warner and Clarke disagree. They think personality is important. What is a weblog without it. The question of what is a weblog is raised. Do we care? asks Clarke?

Personality AND expertise notes Dan Bricklin.

Beth Goza says weblogs are the anti-popup. It'ss pull not push. It challenges the company. Company's have forgotten how to pull people in.

Mooney asks how do you measure a weblog? How can you tell if your weblogging is being successful. Do you want to measure it asks Warner? Over time it will contribute to the company's brand.

Jason Shellen says that a CEOs job is to communcate strategy externally and internally. The problem won't come from the CEO. It will come from legal and marketing department.

Beth Goza notes that Eric Rudder at Microsoft is weblogging now. She notes that she could not have a users group meeting on campus because their lawyers where concerned that someone may slip and fall and sue Microsoft.

Shellen calls out that the lawyers should calculate the missed opportunity cost of not doing something before they say something like that.

Clarke reads a section of Ballmer's memo calling for more human communication with its customers. That's the blogging strategy.

Goza notes Dr. Pepper trying to create a buzz by releasing a new product to bloggers and asking them to not tell anyone they gave it to them was the wrong approach.

You have to be a member of the community to make it work. Her concern is that companies will blogging out and not blogging in.

The conversation has moved into how companies can promotes its own users to foster community.

Goodwin says you do not appreciate the commit until you start doing it. She encourages ever person to think about that before.

Warner says compared to traditional media where a marketer doesn't know if they are reaching the customer – the possibilities of weblogging to reach out and touch your customer. Thinks of it as an amazing opportunity for marketing. Goodwin adds that her weblogging has been qualitive rather then quanitity.

The conversation is on disclosure and cluelessness. Full disclosure is important.

Jason Shellan speaks out that a pitch is something that I don't want to happen to me. I want to learn. David Weinberger agrees as says put up and the blogsphere will find you if its interesting. Jeff Jarvis points out that part of being pitched is a sign of respect. It all depends.

How do you distill the essence of weblogging? Key challenge. It is a breath of fresh air to meet someone like Beth Goza from Microsoft.

Managing A Business Blog

Jimmy Guterman leads a panel with Biz Stone, Adina Levin (Socitext) and Jason Butler from bostonworks.com.

(After a downed WiFi connection and a hung browser we're back. NOw its times to catch up.)

Levin: difference between wiki and weblog are quite similar. A blog is about individual voice or a small teams voice. With a wiki taht individual voice gets lost. They server different aspect of communications.

How do we get business blogging? No need for an excuse. Companies need to communicate. Employees are drowning in email. Weblogging (and wikis) need to harness communications.

Let employee's find their voices says Biz Stone. He is redesigning alumni site. Spun off to students and professors. Found that there are 200 students already blogging at Wellsley. Many students keep paper journals. One professor approach Stone about sharing these journals which weblogging is perfect for. He notes that some people can't handle feedback on their thoughts or lock-up when they have to write.

Levin says the integrating communications with email and the like.

Dan Bricklin warns about the observer effect. If its an internal weblog with sensitive information such as competitive analysis – linking gives info away. You can open yourself up without knowing it.

David Weinberger: Why Blogging Matters

The bubble went away but the Internet and the Web did not. The Internet is a conversation not a communications platform.

What is a blow now? (GENERALLY speaking.) Daily. Few Paragraphs. Reverse Chronological. Linked In. Voice.

Not technology. Rhetoric. Social phenomenon. Something more…

Rhetoric: the importance of writing badly. There is a contract of forgiveness between reader and writer in weblogging. YOu have to forgive the misspellings and poor grammar.

Social: constructing a self.

Are bloggers authentic? Like an M&M candy. Inner personal real. Outer public artificial. Interplay between the two.

Weblogging favors good writers – authors that can attract others. Rewards authors that can offer more of themselves. Pushing the line of private into the public.

Objectivity. Strengths: Multiple stories expert sifting. Community baseline. Weakness: Journalists are humans.

Subjectivity: Our world as it is. Strengths: Acknowledges observer. Acknowledges situation. (Missed the rest.)

Blogs allow multi-subjectivity. We have the tools to publish, find and consume these bits of subjectivity.

Weblogs give each author their own voice. There are those who don't like this. Fort business. Trade on knowledge and controlling information. Gatekeepers of knowledge as also challenged.

What knowledge looks like on the Web. Weinberger is taking us through his experience buying a new washer dryer and his hunt for knowledge.

David is talking about how he had a terrible weekend and could not log on to his blog. He went to MT support board and asked a question and got an answer within a few hours.

This is what knowledge looks like he exclaims the uncertain maybe marketing of stuff to us.

Knowledge is about certainty. Nah! That's an alienation. We deal with flesh and blood each day. Alienation is going to work each day and speaking like someone else.

We had a second public space. (Ironically Dave Weinberger's IM popped open and the audience is posting messages to him while he unwittingly continues.)

Once the laughter dies down he reiterates that we've never had a second public space and now we do.

During questions: Every time you create a link you're sticking it to the man.

Denise Howell's notes
Heath Row's notes:

Strategies and Tips for Business Blogging Success

John Lawlor leads a panel with Major Chris Chambers (Ret.) (America's Army), Greg Lloyd (Traction Software), Halley Suitt (Halley's Comments), and Don White (Piedmont Preferred Properties).

Major Chambers discusses the Army's use of weblogs with the game America's Army. Greg talked about Tractions vision. Halley explains her personal road towards blogdom. Don White speaks about how they where able to do multiple site for a fraction of what most do a single site for. It only requires 1-2 people part time to keep up.

Blogging and/as Content Management System

I was on this panel and couldn't take notes. Denise Howell has done a good job and posted them here. I won't try and do better because I don't think I could. I'll just pay attention to the next panel.

Heath does an excellent job also.

Blogging Technologies And Platforms: Today and Tomorrow.

Doc Searls leads an esteemed panel of luminaries – Jason Shellen (Blogger/Google), Bob Frankston, Dan Bricklin (CTO Interland), Anil Dash (SixApart), Michael Gartenberg (Jupiter), John Robb (Userland).

I tried, but I'm too tired (I've been up since 4:45AM EDT) and this panel is too dynamic for me to keep.

UPDATE: Denise Howell took great notes again. They are here

The Yahoo! Buzz is RSS.

| No Comments

Jeremy Zawodny points out that the Yahoo! Buzz Index is now available as a dozen or so RSS feeds. All are in the 0.91 format. All are perfectly valid when I checked. Good work Yahoo!!

Its good to see the big boys continuing to adopt this stuff even if its at a snails pace at times. Despite all of the bickering over RSS 1.0 and RSS 2.0 they chose to do their new feeds in 0.91. I don't blame them at all.

The recent discussion of RSS profiles and an optional default namespace hosted by Sam Ruby that forked into a heated discussion as to the rights of weblog comments and moderation has brought mind a keynote Clay Shirky gave at the O'Reilly Emerging Technology conference just over a month ago. I took notes on Clay's keynote as he was speaking and posted to a weblog. Here are some select passages from those notes that I thought where relevent to this situation.

Too much open access and too much freedom caused an early online community (Commitree) to collapse because it could not defend themselves from an onslaught on teen age boys that overran the group with obscenities and fart jokes.

The increasing need for structure grows as the group attempts to defend itself from the group.

The core group have rights that trumps the whole group. Absolute citizenship is a harmful pattern. A contenious group can derail anything otherwise.

All groups of any integrty have a constitution. The formal way is in the code. The informal part are the social interations(?) There will always be both parts.

I won't rehash how this conversation diverged and derailed. You can read the comments on Sam's weblog and Shelley Powers.

I have to say that I'm taken aback by Shelley's reaction and see it as being exccessive. I also find it ironic that Shelley is so outraged by group structure and its defense that she just began as a guest contributor to the social software weblog.

It would have been nice had Sam given advanced warning before modifying comments. At the same time there was precious little time to attempt tp protect what was a productive conversation from going astray. Sam, being that it was his weblog (I don't think anyone is surprised by that), reacted to protect the group from itself. Unfortunately, depsite his attempts, it would seem this overreaction threw cold water on that conversation. I hope it recovers, but now I'm not sure.

I got one of my comments marked up so I think it's fair for me to comment – especially since this is my weblog. I didn't even think twice about the practice Sam started – I actually thought it was a good idea. Sam has my utmost respect and I trust his judgement when he marks something as flamebait. I will take that into consideration next time I comment. I am thankful that he didn't just delete any of the comments in question – especially since some good thoughts where interlaced with the inflammatory statements and smack downs.

On an aside, Scott Andrew nails it when he writes Of course, there's irony here in that Sam's clever approach to handling comment flames has all but upstaged the dialogue on RSS within the blogosphere. Which may indicate, some might suggest, that further debate on RSS is futile and unnecessary. And while we're at it, let's throw FOAF and RDF on the pyre too, since no one cares about the former or comprehends the latter. Perhaps marshall law imposed by a few with power is the only way to ever establish order.

Tim Bray asks how do we explain [RSS] to people who don't need know that they need to know? This is an excellent question and one worth answering. Bray explains the need when he writes:

when I explain something to someone and they don?t get it, that?s my problem, not theirs. So I?d genuinely welcome?and I think it would be good for all of us?some discussion of how we can do a better job of explaining what it is we?re up to here and why it matters.

Let the discussion begin. The question is where?

RSS Core Profile DRAFT 2

| No Comments

Based on feedback collected from the comments on Sam's weblog I've updated the draft of the core profile. Changes are documented at the bottom of this post. Please continue to direct any feedback on this draft to the comments area Sam is so graciously hosting.

RSS Core Profile

DRAFT 2

ABSTRACT

The RSS Core profile defines a restricted subset of RSS 2.0 that balances ease of use and authoring with ease of consumption by applications while maintaining the richness necessary to extended and adapt to various problem domains. It is designed for authors wishing to provide a well-formed "feed" of information to consumers. It is designed to provide a foundation for other more focused profiles to be based on.

The RSS Core profile is designed around a simple core of elements that may be easily extended through namespaces and modules. It is also designed to maximize backward compatibility with the RSS 0.91 format and its descendents. This allows the profile and derivatives to leverage the existing install base of 0.91 feeds and prior bodies of work such as Dublin Core meta data and RSS 1.0 modules.

The goal of the RSS profile is to serve as guidelines to best practices in a balanced and simplified approach to authoring and consuming of resources with RSS.

COMMON CORE TAGS

<rss>
Description: The root tag for the syndicated resources collection.
Sub-Elements: channel (required)
Attributes: version - a string identifying the version including profile and document type.
Notes: Only one channel is permitted.

<channel>
Description: Container tag for a specific channel
Sub-Elements: title (required), description (required), link (required), item (required)
Attributes: none.
Notes: Only one each of title, description and link is permitted. Language is deprecated.

<item>
Description: Container tag whose contents represents one resource in the channel. At least one item must be present in a channel.
Sub-Elements: title (required), link (required), description (optional, but highly recommended)
Attributes: none.
Notes: none.

<link>
Description: A unique URI using a IANA-registered scheme that specifies the location of the channel or item (resource). Applications are required only to support one of any of these IANA URI schemes however http:// is highly recommended. A required sub-element of channel and item.
Sub-Elements: none.
Attributes: none.

<description>
Description: A plain text excerpt of the channel or item (resource). A required sub-element of channel. Optional, though highly recommended, sub-element of item.
Sub-Elements: none.
Attributes: none.
Notes: The RSS Core profile supports plain text and does not permit encoded markup such as HTML to be included in the description. Recommended not to exceed 500 characters. Those wishing to embed markup language or larger pieces of content in the description tag should use the mod_content module.

<title>
Description: A plain text descriptive title of the channel or item (resource).
Sub-Elements: none.
Attributes: none.
Notes: Is the equivalent of the HTML title and only supports plain text. Encoded markup such as HTML is not permitted to be included in the title. Recommended to be no more then 100 characters.

DEPRECATED TAGS

Tags not defined herein that have appeared in documentation for RSS 0.91 and its descendents are considered deprecated from the core in the RSS core profile. This data can be furnished though various modules such as Dublin Core, mod_content and mod_admin. All deprecated tags in the RSS core profile where previously considered optional except language which was required by the 0.91 specification, but made optional in later specifications.

TAG MAPPING

As it exists today, most tags that would be considered deprecated by this profile, have a modular equivalent.

For brevity the following prefixes are assumed to be mapped to the list namespace URI. The prefixes used are based on the most common in use today. The namespace URIs have been linked to their documentation.

The following is an initial less then perfect mapping of tags for those who opt to comply with this profile.

  • language: dc:language (see footnote in outstanding issues.)
  • copyright: dc:rights
  • lastBuildDate: dcterms:modified matching HTTP 1.1 Last Modified.
  • managingEditor: dc:publisher
  • pubDate: dc:date
  • guid: link (links should be unique URI.)
  • webMaster: admin:errorReportsTo
  • category: dc:subject
  • expirationDate: dcterms:valid
  • generator: admin:generatorAgent
  • cloud: cp:server
  • rating: rss091:rating
  • source: dc:source or ag:source & ag:sourceURL
  • skipDays & skipHours: rss091:skipDays or rss091:skipHours or use mod_syndication for more advanced functionality.
  • enclosure: mod_image, mod_audio or mod_streaming depending.
  • ttl: similar functionality is in mod_syndication
  • docs: annotate:reference (Or should this be the namespace URI?)
  • comments: annotate:reference
  • image: see mod_image (Though mod_image is designed to work with and supplement the existing image tags from RSS0.91 from what I can tell. The conversation trailed off and never completed. Jon Hanna has proposed another specification that I thought wasn't as appropriate as Kevin Burton's module. http://www.benhammersley.com/archives/003096.html.)
  • textinput: (Needs to be addressed. RSS 1.0 allows it so no module has been designed to date. annotate:reference helps provide a link, however its an empty tag that you couldn't insert a dc:title or other tags.)

EXTENSIBILITY

Without detailed information to extending RSS 2.0 with modules and XML namespaces, the RSS Core Profile will follow the guidelines set forth in the RSS 1.0 format module documentation. Modules should make every attempt to keep module syntax streamlined and simple by minimizing the use of RDF/XML constructs.

EXAMPLES

OUTSTANDING ISSUES

  • How to identify the profile/document type? Place in version? or use XML document type? Both?
  • link tag language sufficient? http:// is highly recommended or should it be required?
  • Need to better address non-English language feeds. Morten Frederiksen suggests inclusion of a clause like "if the language is not English, please include the dc:language element according to XXX." Should non-English feeds be forced to use Extensible or Transitional? Is there a better way?
  • RSS 2.0 can never use a default namespace? Currently being tested out and considered to be optionally permissable.
  • content:encoded, xhtml:body or both

CHANGE LOG

DRAFT 2, Jun 04 2003

  • Switched depreciated to deprecated. (Lance at Brainpolis)
  • Change language under channel as per this post (Lance at Brainpolis)
  • Dropped the 15 items per channel note under item. A limit may (or may not) be set in profiles that inherit from the Core profile based on context.
  • Added prefix to namespace URI mappings with links to their documentation (Dare Obasanjo)
  • Added "less then perfect" clarification on tag mappings.
  • Changed "existing RSS formats" to "RSS 2.0" in the abstract for clarity.
  • Added content:encoded, xhtml:body or both to outstanding issues.
  • Added a note that a default namespace is being tested.
  • Various spelling and grammar fixes.

DRAFT 1, Jun 03 2003

UPDATE: A second draft has been published here.

This is a slightly more formalized write-up of a proposed profile for RSS that has been discussed and brought up again. Rather then just produce an iteration of what Don Box wrote up, I thought I'd take a step back to codify some of the design considerations in which other profiles may be built. I believe with this established going forward will be much smoother and better focused.

While we may not be able or want to identify them right now, there will be different profiles depending on the context. A comments feed will have different requirements then a news/weblog feed that will have different requirements then an embedded item in an API message. While these contexts and their needs will certainly vary, they needn't be entirely different. The Core Profile is an attempt to create a foundation that other profiles, such as "RSS for Weblogs," can be derived.

UPDATE: Sam Ruby has opened a comments area on on this post. Please direct any feedback on this draft there.

RSS Core Profile

DRAFT 1

ABSTRACT

The RSS Core profile defines a restricted subset of existing RSS formats that balances ease of use and authoring with ease of consumption by applications while maintaining the richness necessary to extended and adapt to various problem domains. It is designed for authors wishing to provide a well-formed "feed" of information to consumers. It is designed to provide a foundation for other more focused profiles to be based on.

The RSS Core profile is designed around a simple core of elements that may be easily extended through namespaces and modules. It is also designed to maximize backward compatibility with the RSS 0.91 format and its descendents. This allows the profile and derivitives to leverage the existing install base of 0.91 feeds and prior bodies of work such as Dublin Core meta data and RSS 1.0 modules.

The goal of the RSS profile is to serve as guidelines to best practices in a balanced and simplified approach to authoring and consuming of resources with RSS.

COMMON CORE TAGS

<rss>
Description: The root tag for the syndicated resources collection.
Sub-Elements: channel (required)
Attributes: version - a string identifying the version including profile and document type.
Notes: Only one channel is permitted.

<channel>
Description: Container tag for a specific channel
Sub-Elements: title (required), description (required), link (required), item (required)
Attributes: none.
Notes: Only one title, description or link is permitted. Language is depreciated.

<item>
Description: Container tag whose contents represents one resource in the channel. At least one item must be present in a channel.
Sub-Elements: title (required), link (required), description (optional but highly recommended)
Attributes: none.
Notes: Recommended to not exceed 15 per channel.

<link>
Description: A unique URI using a IANA-registered scheme that specifies the location of the channel or item (resource). Applications are required only to support one of any of these IANA URI schemes however http:// is highly recommended. A required sub-element of channel and item.
Sub-Elements: none.
Attributes: none.

<description>
Description: A plain text excerpt of the channel or item (resource). A required sub-element of channel. Optional, though highly recommended, sub-element of item.
Sub-Elements: none.
Attributes: none.
Notes: The RSS Core profile supports plain text and does not permit encoded markup such as HTML to be included in the description. Recommended not to exceed 500 characters. Those wishing to embed markup language or larger pieces of content in the description tag should use the mod_content module.

<title>
Description: A plain text descriptive title of the channel or item (resource).
Sub-Elements: none.
Attributes: none.
Notes: Is the equivalent of the HTML title and only supports plain text. Encoded markup such as HTML is not permitted to be included in the title. Recommended to be no more then 100 characters.

DEPRECIATED TAGS

Tags not defined other tags from RSS 0.91 and its descendents are considered depreciated from the core in the RSS core profile. This data can be furnished though various modules such as Dublin Core, mod_content and mod_admin. All depreciated tags in the RSS core profile where previously considered optional except language which was required by the 0.91 specification, but made optional in later specifications.

TAG MAPPING

As it exists today, most tags that would be considered deprecaited by this profile, have a modulized equivelant. The following is an an initial mapping of tags for those who opt to comply with this profile.

  • language: dc:language (see footnote in outstanding issues.)
  • copyright: dc:rights
  • lastBuildDate: dcterms:modified matching HTTP 1.1 Last Modified.
  • managingEditor: dc:publisher
  • pubDate: dc:date
  • guid: link (links should be unique URI.)
  • webMaster: admin:errorReportsTo
  • category: dc:subject
  • expirationDate: dcterms:valid
  • generator: admin:generatorAgent
  • cloud: cp:server
  • rating: rss091:rating
  • source: dc:source or ag:source & ag:sourceURL
  • skipDays & skipHours: rss091:skipDays or rss091:skipHours or use mod_syndication for more advanced functionality.
  • enclosure: mod_image, mod_audio or mod_streaming dependinng.
  • ttl: similar functionality is in mod_syndication
  • docs: annotate:reference (Or should this be the namespace URI?)
  • comments: annotate:reference
  • image: see mod_image (Though mod_image is designed to work with and suppliment the existing image tags from RSS0.91 from what I can tell. The conversation trailed off and never completed. Jon Hanna has proposed another specification that I thought wasn't as good as Kevin Burton's mod_image. http://www.benhammersley.com/archives/003096.html.)
  • textinput: (Needs to be addressed. RSS 1.0 allows it so no module has been designed to date. annotate:reference helps provide a link, however its an empty tag that you couldn't insert a dc:title or other tags.)

EXTENSIBILITY

Without detailed information to extending RSS 2.0 with modules and XML namespaces, the RSS Core Profile will follow the guidelines set forth in the RSS 1.0 format module documentation. Modules should make every attempt to keep module syntax streamlined and simple by minimizing the use of RDF/XML constructs.

EXAMPLES

OUTSTANDING ISSUES

  • How to identify the profile/document type? Place in version? or use XML document type? Both?
  • link tag language sufficient? http:// is highly recommended or should it be required?
  • Need to better address non-English language feeds. Morten Frederiksen suggests inclusion of a clause like "if the language is not English, please include the dc:language element according to XXX." Should non-English feeds be forced to use Extensible or Transitional? Is there a better way?
  • RSS 2.0 can never use a default namespace?

CHANGE LOG

DRAFT 1, Jun 03 2003

About this Archive

This page is an archive of entries from June 2003 listed from newest to oldest.

May 2003 is the previous archive.

July 2003 is the next archive.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Powered by Movable Type 4.2rc2-en