But WAIT! I am NOT an rdf Zealot, I love Namespaces and I think we’re using the term meta-data - differently
Sorry Adam for using the term meta-data differently than you do.
By meta-data I meant ‘information about something which is attached to that something’.
My usage of meta-data is NOT rdf. rdf is ONE technique for meta-data - one that expands it with the notion of triples. Namespaces are another.
There’s nothing wrong with namespaces - as LONG AS YOU DO THEM! Just talking about it - ain’t enough, yah gotta put up or shut up.
By meta-data I mean “something about the podcast” as opposed to nothing at all. I can’t believe that that’s not a desireable state.
But this nonchalant attiutude towards putting meta-data in there “if I feel like it” just drives me fucking nuts!
I agree with you on rdf’s complexity - but don’t take the laisez faire approach of not requiring descriptive information about the ’stuff’. As you said - anyone can create a namespace - and the more the merrier - right?
NOT.
No dude - this is where standards building comes in. Politically motivated, behind the door, back-room, actually get shit done kind of standards building - with real products supporting real APIs and schemas. Just ask Jason Shellen what I mean by that. Or Sam Ruby.
Without having standard formats for all the ’shit’, what’s the point of having all the pipes?
No standardized schemas and we lack a cohesive way to inter-connect together, which then leads to confusion, lack of syncrhonicity and - …. well look what happened with RSS 2.0.
When too much was left for granted - for others to ‘figure out’ - we ran into lots of problems - right? I won’t go into details, but suffice is to say - defining some namepsaces or even just “how to do a namespace” - exactly - would have helped.
So let’s keep the debate going!
What’s your excuse why you’d flow structured data through RSS 2.0 and lose it’s structure? I gotta understand why that is a good thing?
And while we’re at it - I apologize for insinuating that you’re like “them”. I would NEVER put you into that ‘anti-meta’ rutt - unless you want to be there.
You have a great opoortunity at Google of stepping up and defining WHAT the shit is that goes through the pipes - instead of the size and shape of the pipe and the angle of the thread on the pipe.
Infrastructure needs to move beyond plumbing and into new kinds of micro-content. We need shared data servers, registries and ‘pivot points’ - where we can aggregate ALL the micro-content, conversations and memes - around one subject, on an OpenTopics page. Take tags and categories and combine it with the Wikipedia and the Internet Topic Exchange.
We need Google in sync and working with us on this Web 2.0 effort. That menas we need YOU - Adam Bosworth - to get it together and help promulgate new standards for micro-content. NOW.
I mean how often do I get a chance to have a real debate with someone who’s so powerful that by his very nature he sends people out on 2 hour walks - everyday.