[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
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@cisco.com> 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@gmail.com> 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@sbcglobal.net>
> > 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@cisco.com
>
--
<M:D/>
:: M. David Peterson ::
XML & XML Transformations, C#, .NET, and Functional Languages Specialist
|
