Re: Rigged Aggregators?
Yeah, I'm right with you... but while I can recognize the necessity and know that if given a proper spec and access to the proper resources can easily build the model implementation I have ZERO experience designing the architecture for something of this nature. I just want to make sure that you all are aware that I would love to hack the code together but am in no way able to offer any architectural suggestions -- at least not until I am able to see a bit of how those in the know would go about this type of project. For now I will simply step back and watch this thread and if a committe decides to pick this up then feel free to contact me when you need some code written :D In fact, PLEASE contact me when you do as I would LOVE to write it! With that, I will step aside and let those of you in whom already know or have a good idea as to what needs to be done take things from here. Thanks for picking this up Nathan! It will be neat if this can really come together :) On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 15:40:34 -0800, Nathan Young <natyoung@c...> wrote: > Hey. > > It seems like annotea could be used for this. It specifies a way of > creating, maintianing and retrieveing meta data comments (annotations) > about anything with a URI. > > No matter how you model it, the very biggest thing would be to have a way > for people to very easily add to meta data about how accurate a given > article is because relying on the publisher of the article to do this for > you has obvious flaws. > > Aggregating and browsing applications would need to incorporate this data > in a meaningful way. But to my mind the usability and convenience of the > mechanism by which "accuracy" meta data gets created and reviewed by an > activew audience is far more critical. > > ----->N > > On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 16:21:40 -0700, M. David Peterson > <m.david.x2x2x@g...> wrote: > > > One of these days I will learn that reply-all is necessary on xml-dev... > > > > Ken, you'll get this twice... sorry 'bout that! > > > > In regards to Ken's suggested <factChecker> element: > > --- > > I'm not sure to what level you are serious of such an element but it > > seems that with the focus of Attention.xml > > [http://developers.technorati.com/wiki/attentionxml] there ought to be > > an opportunity to gain interest and momentum for a > > @src:verify="uri:path/to/page/set-up/to/implement/agreed/src-verify/standards" > > in which a mechanism can be invoked such that the sources named can > > "check-in", validate that they are who they claim to be, and provide > > proper evidence that "yes, in fact I said this" or "I have no idea > > even who phreak boy over there is... this is a bold face lie"... > > > > something, anything that can finally give credence to a self-check > > mechanism such that we can confidently weed out the fraudulent phreaks > > while allowing those that are legit the oppportunity to say so in a > > way that can maintain their privacy while legitimizing that they are > > in fact for real and their claims are in line with the article that > > sent you here. > > > > Anything like this exist now or are their existing prkojects that > > could justifiably add this to their schema? It is soooo badly needed > > and yet may not be enough to stand on its own as far as complete > > project is concerned... > > > > Ideas? I would LOVE to donate some dev time two to three months down > > the road to the organization who thinks they can pull something like > > this together... Could Attention.xml add this to their efforts? It > > certainly has some solid backing it seems. Is it too late to bring > > this to Atom or RSS/RDF? I'm not suggesting that I know where this > > should be, just simply throwing out project names in hopes that it > > snags someone's attention in whom could make something like this > > happen... > > > > > > On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 14:38:44 -0800, Ken North <kennorth@s...> > > wrote: > >> Len Bullard wrote: > >> > > I think we will see more blogs like that, and just as 'intelligent > >> > > design' is making its way into school science classes, > >> > > more superstition will be presented as credible theories > >> > > because those capable of refuting them refuse to take > >> > > the time. > >> > >> Jeff Rafter wrote: > >> > Is that the point? To equate the "Rigged aggregators" blog with belief > >> > in God is offensive. > >> > >> That's an interesting characterization of Len's comments. It's > >> certainly not the > >> conclusion I'd draw from his remarks. > >> > >> The fundamental issue is bloggers/RSS/Atom have dramatically increased > >> the > >> content being presented as news -- and many authors do not follow > >> journalism's > >> rule about fact checking. > >> > >> Perhaps we need to update specs such as Dublin Core and RSS to include a > >> <factChecker> element. > >> > >> > >> ======== Ken North =========== > >> www.WebServicesSummit.com > >> www.SQLSummit.com > >> www.GridSummit.com > >> > >> > >> ----------------------------------------------------------------- > >> The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an > >> initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org> > >> > >> The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/ > >> > >> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription > >> manager: <http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/index.php> > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > > .:||:._.:||:._.:||:._.:||:._.:||:._.:||:._.:||:._.:||:._.:||:._.:||:._.:||:. > > Nathan Young > A: ncy1717 > E: natyoung@c... > -- <M:D/> :: M. David Peterson :: XML & XML Transformations, C#, .NET, and Functional Languages Specialist
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format