Categories
Just Shelley Weblogging

Caricatures and Shadows

Recovered from the Wayback Machine

I’m thinking more about the concept behind discarding weblog archives. I’ve been re-reading some old posts, some nice and some not so nice. Those posts that are a year or two old aren’t even recognizable.

I’ve earned the sobriquet “Burningbird” honestly, as I’ve been nothing if not hot in much of my writing. Passionate, yes, and there’s nothing wrong with passion. But there’s also a lot of anger and pettishness and I cringe to see me in these words.

If I wanted to grow my popularity, I would feed the fire because this attracts the links, the comments, and the discussions. The more petulant the tone, the more vicious the words, the more noise and flurry of activity—flies around shit. Played correctly, I could even become an A-lister someday, until I burn up and become nothing but a cinder, driving away all that’s important.

Lately, life intrudes and does so significantly, and I just don’t want to feed the flames. Being passionate about causes, yes; more now than ever. Being passionate about truth, yes; the truth is threatened daily. But fighting with other webloggers—the nit nitting, the pick picking— it’s getting old. It gets older, with each level of dust layered on the history of this weblog.

If you all met me in person, you’d be disappointed. I’m not the person in my words, in these pages that stretch back like too long a road. They are a caricature of me, and I am only a faint shadow in them.

Categories
Weblogging

Weblog Graveyard

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

I finally managed to get the For Poets sites up and running and have moved a couple of existing articles over, to Internet for Poets and Semantic Web for Poets. You can check the sites out following the links in the sidebar on the main page of Burningbird. Please let me know if the template I used for all the sites is causing breakage in your browser. I’ve tested in Mac OSX and Windows, with a variety of tools, but you know how it is.

All the new weblogs are using Movable Type. I did manage to install several other weblogging tools, but when it came time to try and skin them — I threw in the towel, and decided that what I’m writing is more important than what I’m using to publish it. Either I continued to fuss with the tools, or I started writing again.

Writing won.

In addition to moving the older articles over, I also published the first part of a multi-part series on Permalinks, Weblog links. Part 1, “The Impermanence of Permalinks”, discusses the problems of permalinks and moving weblogs or changing tools, something we all know all too well. The rest of the segments of the article are as follows:

 

Part 2: “Re-weaving the broken web”

What are some of the techniques you can use to point your old permalink addresses to your new page locations.

Part 3: “Architectural Changes for Friendly Permalinking”

What should tools provide, at a minimum, to prevent permalink problems.

Part 4: “Start fresh by sweeping out the old webs”

Sometimes you may want to break the permalinks, and sometimes you may want to deliberately throw out archive pages. This last section challenges the premise behind persistent archives, and the myth of the permalink.

Part 2 will cover techniques you can use to redirect from old pages to new locations, including using htaccess, ErrorDocument, Redirect, and so on.

Part 3 is going to focus on what weblogging tools should support to minimize the broken permalink problem. I plan on tying this back to the Pie/Echo/Atom effort, and see where the requirements outlined in the article would fit into the current work with the new initiative. In addition, I’ll write on how these same requirements will impact on existing weblogging tools, and what we can do to propagate changes more quickly through all the services we’re all so tied into now.

The last part is going to be the fun one. The scenario basically is this — throw out the rulebook, and break the permalinks, throw away the archives. Yes, violating the two strongest taboos of weblogging in order to make a move to a new site, or, more importantly, to redefine what your weblog is, and what you want it to say about you.

Sometimes you may find yourself caught up in weblogging patterns that you find, over time, don’t suit you. You may want to change what you write about, or change how you write, or even your subject matter. You look back through your old archives of what you wrote a year ago, two years ago, and it isn’t compatible with what you want to write now. So what do you do? Do you keep the old baggage — dusty old permalinks to dusty old writing? Or do you start fresh?

Somewhere along the way we built into Law that thou shalt not break permalinks, thou shalt not drop archives. We leave them lying, permanent reminders for all time and either just change direction in our writing (causing some confusion between the old and the new), or start a new weblog.

I envision a future Web, littered with the carcasses of old, old weblogs, long discarded, long forgotten, ghosts that haunt the threaded void. What exactly do you do with an old, old weblog that refuses to die? Can we take it out into the wilderness somewhere, and leave it by the side of the road? Will it manage to find its way back home? Can we pretend at some future time, that we don’t know it?

I think it’s time, and past, to put this law to the challenge. Part 4 talks about this, and also talks about how you can ‘break’ the laws with style, grace, and elegance.

Categories
Weblogging

For Poets

Completed the four new Burningbird Network weblogs – Semantic Web for Poets, Internet for Poets, Linux for Poets, and Weblogging for Poets – as shown in the list to your left. This is all part of a major rework of the entire Burningbird Network, something I’ve been wanting to do for some time and am finally getting around to it.

Currently I’m moving a couple of older posts over to the new sites, but I’m also working on a Semantic Web for Poets entry having to do with recent W3C TAG discussions, semiotics of photography, and the ultimate New Age question:

Who am I?

Couple of days. First I have an overdue essay for Linux for Poets, and one on Weblogging for Poets.

Fun. By the way, check out the poem for the Semantic Web for Poets weblog – see if you can catch the allusion to RDF.

Categories
Weblogging

There was a tree. There was a sock. There was a man of God.

Nothing I can say in this post will make any sense outside of the context, so all I can do is point you to AKMA’s most recent trip report from Oxford, no less.

You see, there was this tree, with this sock in it…

(BTW AKMA, I am glad you’re okay, and I hope you don’t mind the giggles. But…I can’t help it.)

Categories
RDF

FOAF:knows a clarification

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

Dan Brickley just came out with a why there’s a foaf:knows but not a foaf:friend. The better explanation occurs in the comments:

Because the concepts of ‘knowing’, ‘knowing well’, ‘friend’ etc. are both slippery and because people vary (personality, use of language etc.) in how they’re comfortable using those concepts, you get into situations such as X’s foaf file says that X has friends Y, and Z whereas Y’s foaf says X is ‘just’ a knows or knowsWell (knowsWell being particularly awkward as it suggests significant familiarity without affection, ie. no “would like to know better” wiggleroom). Z’s foaf might list neither as friends, and risk being taken (despite ommission not implying negation in RDF or FOAF) as suggesting that Z doesn’t consider either X or Y to be friends. Although Z might protest that the absence of a claim from a FOAF file is consistent with it still being true, X and Y could fairly counter-protest that Z could have made the effort to mention them since they made the effort to mention him/her. And so on…

You see similar economies of expected reciprocation in closed-world systems like Friendster or LinkedIn, especially where they offer endorsement and commenting facilities. Not something to blunder into with FOAF without some careful thought, so we retreated to the safer ground of ‘foaf:knows’.

Glad, am I, that Dan came out with this.