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.
<p>Yesterday Sam Ruby opened <a href="http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/FrontPage">a wiki</a> to develop a well formed log entry.</p>
<p>Like <a href="http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2003/06/16/Pie#abstract">Tim Bray</a>, I'm not much for abstract discussion, but I'm willing to play along.</p>
<p>This has all been very interesting and undoubtably progress has been made. The development of optional modules is great. Discussion of <a href="http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/PermaLinks">permalinks and URIs and unique identifiers</a> has also been excellent. Of course, as is human nature, I won't dwell on the good stuff and focus on what bugs me. </p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>For instance when Sam originally opened the wiki <a href="http://www.intertwingly.net/blog/1472.html">he wrote</a> that the purpose of the wiki was for describing <q>a conceptual data model of what constitutes a <strong>well formed log</strong> entry.</q> During the course of the day, Aaron Schwarz, exercising the wiki way, <a href="http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/FrontPage?action=diff&date=1055865960">modified it</a> to read <q>the conceptual data model of <strong>weblog</strong> entries.</q> From my viewpoint this change was significant. I thought Sam's use of the word <q>log</q> instead of <q>weblog</q> 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.</p>
<p>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 <a href="http://www.rassoc.com/gregr/weblog/archive.aspx?post=611">Greg Reinacker's suggestion</a> that we think of it as <q>syndicated content.</q></p>
<p>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. <strong>There seems to be some confusion as to what we are talking about.</strong> 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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>This confusion from the rapid and easily evolved effort has lead me to seek answers:</p>
<ul>
<li>Are we speaking about weblog entries or a more general notion that transcends weblogs to what Greg Reinacker refers to as syndicated content?</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>What is meant by <q>content</q> in the minimum requirements? What relationship does that content have to the required permalink? What do you link and what do you embed?</li>
</ul>
<p>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.</p>
<p>The discussion continues.</p>
Leave a comment