Lists Home |
Date Index |
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
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
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 14:38:44 -0800, Ken North <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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 ===========
> 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>
:: M. David Peterson ::
XML & XML Transformations, C#, .NET, and Functional Languages Specialist