<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Welcome Google to the world of microcontent</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.broadbandmechanics.com/2005/10/welcome_google/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.broadbandmechanics.com/2005/10/welcome_google</link>
	<description>Digital Lifestyle Aggregation - helping to establish open source infrastructure</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 20 Nov 2008 17:16:41 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Bob  Wyman</title>
		<link>http://blog.broadbandmechanics.com/2005/10/welcome_google#comment-2232</link>
		<dc:creator>Bob  Wyman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://marc_blogs_it.myelin.co.nz/?p=2477#comment-2232</guid>
		<description>Marc, You say: "This is great news... as long as Google exposes this content..." I believe that it will only be "good news" if Google moves away from the Web 1.0 "walled garden" approach they are apparently taking (requiring people to input the data directly to Google) and moves instead to also supporting a more Web 2.0 data gathering system that would pull structured content which is openly published on non-Google sites, blogs, feeds, etc. using microformats, Structured Blogging, etc. If Google insists that people use their closed publishing system, what they will be doing is "capturing" the data within their system and making it difficult for other systems to have competitive access to the same data. That might serve their interests but it wouldn't serve the interests of many publishers.

see: http://structuredblogging.org/ and http://bobwyman.pubsub.com/main/2005/05/mary_hodder_poi.html

bob wyman</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Marc, You say: &#8220;This is great news&#8230; as long as Google exposes this content&#8230;&#8221; I believe that it will only be &#8220;good news&#8221; if Google moves away from the Web 1.0 &#8220;walled garden&#8221; approach they are apparently taking (requiring people to input the data directly to Google) and moves instead to also supporting a more Web 2.0 data gathering system that would pull structured content which is openly published on non-Google sites, blogs, feeds, etc. using microformats, Structured Blogging, etc. If Google insists that people use their closed publishing system, what they will be doing is &#8220;capturing&#8221; the data within their system and making it difficult for other systems to have competitive access to the same data. That might serve their interests but it wouldn&#8217;t serve the interests of many publishers.</p>
<p>see: <a href="http://structuredblogging.org/" rel="nofollow">http://structuredblogging.org/</a> and <a href="http://bobwyman.pubsub.com/main/2005/05/mary_hodder_poi.html" rel="nofollow">http://bobwyman.pubsub.com/main/2005/05/mary_hodder_poi.html</a></p>
<p>bob wyman</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: direwolff</title>
		<link>http://blog.broadbandmechanics.com/2005/10/welcome_google#comment-2233</link>
		<dc:creator>direwolff</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://marc_blogs_it.myelin.co.nz/?p=2477#comment-2233</guid>
		<description>Let's hope that Edgeio's upcoming offering in this classifieds space does a better job in shining the light on the Web 2.0 way of addressing these issues.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Let&#8217;s hope that Edgeio&#8217;s upcoming offering in this classifieds space does a better job in shining the light on the Web 2.0 way of addressing these issues.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
