BurningbirdTech specs
Recovered from the Wayback Machine.
(Note, names have been changed to protect the deliciously guilty…)
[12:19] Shelly: “Postscript: You know, there are no women involved in
the RDF/RSS working group or the RDF working group. I think this should change. Perhaps I should lurk less and talk more. Any other lady techs in the audience wish to join me?” Good point!
[12:20] you know, I didn’t know Shelly was a girl.
[12:20] i thought that was a last name.
(Reprinted with permission.)
Recovered from the Wayback Machine.
(Note, names have been changed to protect the deliciously guilty…)
[12:19] Shelly: “Postscript: You know, there are no women involved in
the RDF/RSS working group or the RDF working group. I think this should change. Perhaps I should lurk less and talk more. Any other lady techs in the audience wish to join me?” Good point!
[12:20] you know, I didn’t know Shelly was a girl.
[12:20] i thought that was a last name.
(Reprinted with permission.)
Recovered from the Wayback Machine.
Regarding RSS, Dave will be releasing his version of RSS tomorrow.
Ben Hammersley has taken on the responsibility to try and get feedback to Dave about the Userland RSS. Good job, Ben, and good on you for taking this on. I’ll even forgive you for eating Marmite for this one.
You can view my opinion of Userland’s RSS within the comments attached to Ben’s postings. And that’s the last thing I have to say on this particular variation of RSS.
Recovered from the Wayback Machine.
I am disappointed.
I am disappointed that the work I did yesterday to show that RDF can work well within a simplified RSS environment is for naught because assumptions have already been made, decisions sealed. Jon Udell writes, paraphrasing Sam Ruby, Assuming that the RSS core is now frozen…. Why is there an assumption that the core is frozen? Why is there an assumption that Userland owns RSS 2.0? Because Dave Winer says so? Because a few – a very few– other people say so?
What of the community, who must continue to be faced with issues of two different RSS specifications; who will have to face the difficulties inherent with this again in the future?
I’m disappointed because assumptions have been made that the efforts of the RSS 1.0 working group and Userland can never merge. The result of this assumption is that those who wish to write or read RSS in the future must bear the burden of both groups lack of cooperation.
I am disappointed because we were starting to see such good questions from the user community — questions such as those that appeared in the comments attached to my postings. Questions that allow us to define why some of these issues are important to many of us. Questions and comments that serve to make technologists take a good hard look at what we arrogantly decide is ‘good’ for the community.
Both RSS groups have been working far too long in a vacuum, and this week the lid got popped and fresh air came in. And I have never seen groups, normally so diametrically opposed, work together so well as these two did this week, trying to put that lid back on as quickly as possible.
I am disappointed that the RDF working group didn’t join the debate and benefit from such an open discourse with the user community, in addition to taking this opportunity to clarify much of the confusion and complexity about RDF. However, the debate was so short, the working group may not even be aware that it happened.
Recovered from the Wayback Machine.
Folks, to all intents and purposes both RSS groups are continuing along on their separate paths. Whether the RSS 1.0 group continues using RDF in their specification is an open question, which I hope they will resolve as this indecision leaves confusion in its wake.
I think the community loses by this divergence, but I have done all that I can to try and influence this and haven’t been successful. I will continue to answer questions about my interpretation of any of this, but won’t continue my direct efforts in this regard, not because I’m angry and am picking up my marbles and going home, but because I am going to need to focus my time on those things I can influence, such as making a living.
I did appreciate those questions about the use of RDF within the simplified RDF RSS 2.0 specification. Those were a treat, and I thank you. Please feel free to continue asking questions, privately, via email.
On to other things.