Categories
Writing

Kristof

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

Coming home from the park tonight, I had the windows rolled down to catch the evening breezes, and the music cranked loud, enjoying being out of the house and away from the computer. I was on autopilot, not really paying attention to my surroundings until I pulled up behind a dark green car at the spotlight. The license plate read KRSTOF.

KRSTOF. Kristof. A name that evokes images of dark gypsies with mysterious ways, brilliant red sashes holding hair back from unnerving black eyes. I peered into the back window of the car but the glass was too dark and the sun against it to bright to see anything more than a shadow of a head. A male head. Of course.

When the light changed and as we drove, I thought about this man in the green car, with the name that rolls across your tongue like fine chocolate or the merest wisp of fine cognac.

Kristof is a hiker, like myself, but unlike me, with my walks along the Katy Trail and Powder Valley, he’s traveled all throughout the world, hiking the fjords in Norway and the hills of Scotland. He speaks with a slight accent, the product of his early youth spent in Europe, as the son of a university professor who taught medieval history.

His face is lean and dark from the sun, and wrinkles formed grooves down his cheeks and a single line between his eyes. He’s is in his 50’s, but age sits on Kristof as lushly and caressingly as the dark, sable soft mustache sits over his thin lips.

His hands grab the leather wrapping of the steering wheel, fingers long and slender but strong; gentle hands with calloused fingertips, a legacy of years of playing classical guitar. Around his neck he wears a silver necklace, weighed down by an extraordinarily carved amber leaf, held in place by intertwined silver vines. The pendant was a gift on his 40th birthday from his mother, an artistic and eccentric woman who used to make him soft boiled eggs sprinkled with chives and dotted with caviar for Sunday breakfast.

His parents are separated, and have been for years; though apart, they still remain close. There is love between them and always will be, but it’s not enough to overcome their need to be free — a need that chafes at the bonds of daily cohabitation. As soon as Kristof was old enough, they talked with him about this need to be apart and from that moment he alternated his time between them, content with his odd but satisfying family.

Kristoff’s father is retired, living in Denmark and doing research for a book on Margaret, Queen of Denmark, Norway, and Sweden. Margaret, a queen in a land dominated by men, was gifted enough to capture the hearts of the people and keep peace in her homeland of Denmark; strong enough to extend that peace through marriage and alliance to include Denmark’s neighbors, a rare moment of unification for an area with strong regional ties.

Kristof’s mother is visiting Russia, searching for fine specimens of Baltic amber, the stone she uses for all of her jewelry. At one time she used other stones, such as onyx and opal and Lorimar, but after her first creation with amber — the very pendant on her son’s necklace — she would work with no other material. In Moscow, she meets with an old friend and over cups of strong tea served in tall glasses held by delicate silver filigree, they talk of rumors that another piece of the famous Amber Room has surfaced. Entirely crafted of fine amber in different hues, the Amber Room was a gift to Peter the Great from the King of Prussia, and they say to walk within it was like bathing in pure sunlight. The room disappeared during the War, stolen by the Nazis and some said destroyed in a fire, others said at the bottom of Baltic Sea when the ship carrying it was sunk.

As much as he loves his parents, though, Kristof’s mind is not on them, Margaret, or amber. He’s thinking of a trip two weeks ago when he was visiting a close friend who lives in Maine. They had spent a fine day out on a boat owned by his friend’s brother, sailing about the bay with the Atlantic breezes cool as they blew through Kristof’s thick, dark hair; the sun warm as it touched upon the glint of silver at his temples and in his mustache.

The boat was trim and sleek and the gathering of friends and family was warm and friendly, made more so by another guest, the cousin of his friend’s brother’s wife. He had noticed her as soon as he stepped on to the boat, a woman with chestnut hair down to her shoulders softly framing a face lovely, but not beautiful. She had a light dusting of freckles across her nose that he only noticed that evening when they walked along the beach and he bent down to meet her face tipped up to meet his. The moonlight and the golden glow of the antique streetlight next to the beach picked out her soft grey/green eyes, a hint of laughter and something else, something more subtle, reflected back at him.

In the morning, they shared strong, rich coffee made smooth by sweet creme, and spread blueberry jam on fresh, still warm muffins. The day promised to be another fine one, with only faint wisps of fog curling around the trees by the shore. They ate on the porch, sitting in rockers worn grey from years in the salt air and smooth by the bodies of past visitors, occasionally tossing crumbs to the seagulls that shamelessly begged at their feet.

Kristof remembered her soft curves and generous mouth and the blue-green tang of the ocean, always the ocean behind and around them; but more, he remembered her laughter and how well their words met and melded into crystaline phrases he could still recall. He told her about autumn in St. Louis, looking at her from the corner of his eye as he spoke about the deep greens of the hills turned into the same brilliant colors of his mother’s collection of fine amber. He also made sure to talk about nights filled with delicately fried catfish accompanied by dark beer, and cool, blue jazz. His words were both a promise and a lure, and he wondered whether he should wait until he got home, or pull over then and there and call her on his cell phone.

At that moment, Kristof turned into the left turn lane, and I pulled up beside him and then passed, eyes forward and on the traffic surrounding my car.

Categories
Weblogging

A little Rageboy is essential

Sometimes when you have a Really Bad Day, like I’ve had today, a little phone call from a friend can make all the difference in the world. And when that friend is Chris Locke, aka Rageboy, that little phone call can usually turn the world upside down, so that all the coins fall out of our pockets and on to the universe’s floor. After all, the man needs his Starbucks coffee.

Rageboy has discovered my Talkback function. Now I want to know — where did he find the photo of me? It’s an old one — I have a navel ring, now.

Everyone needs a little Rageboy in their life.

Categories
RDF

Blindsiding and forward thinking

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

When Sam Ruby invited me into an IRC chat last week to talk about creating a compliant RDF/XML syntax for Pie/Echo/Atom, I wasn’t aware that there was an agenda behind this effort. It wasn’t until Sam published the full model at his weblog and discussed how RDF needs to meet XML half way and that there needs to be changes to the RDF/XML syntax for it to be more ‘palatable’, that I became aware that there was a lot of behind the scenes conversations occurring about RDF/XML and Pie/Echo/Atom.

I was disappointed in this effort, not the least of which is that all it did last week is start up the usual anti-RDF crowd; the same crowd who give very little in the nature of specifics about exactly what they dislike. (Sam did give three specifics, and all three were comprehensively addressed in his comments.)

Being an RDF and RDF/XML supporter among anti-RDF crowd feels like being in the middle of a bobbing head factory after an earthquake.

I though the issue was over and done with, though, and I was turning my attention to trying to repair the damage to RDF/XML, when I read with suprise today, this article by Mark Pilgrim at xml.com. I discovered it when I went to Mark’s site and saw Everything considered harmful.

If I was disappointed in last week’s debacle, I was wasn’t made happier that O’Reilly and xml.com published Mark’s article when they declined my suggestion of an article discussing some of the politics surrounding RDF/XML — a suggestion I made over a month ago. And that my own effort last week was, frankly, used against what I support — without me being given fair time for defense except in this weblog. Thank goodness for weblogs, I suppose.

In case you’re not a techie and are curious as to what the technical term for all of this is, it’s called ‘being blindsided’.

Mark discusses four issues of RDF: model, syntax, semantic web, and tools. He stated that people may be communicating at cross-purposes because they’re talking about different issues when they talk about ‘RDF’. Some may like the model, but not the syntax. Others may like the tools, but think the semantic web is a pipedream.

I can agree with Mark’s assessment of the four issues. His opinion about using RDF for Pie/Echo/Atom is: the model forced the people to examine specific aspects of the syntax, which is good; the syntax sucks; the tools that work with the syntax are good (he mentions a Python one, of course, RDFLib); while the semantic web is a pipedream.

I can’t disagree with Mark’s opinion — it is his opinion. But I can disagree with his arguments.

Unfortunately, the example used to demonstrate how difficult the RDF/XML syntax was one created under a specific requirement — create a full, proper, formal syntax using all nuances of the RDF/XML syntax. Because of this, it effectively brings in the most complex aspects of RDF/XML, rather than keeping the model simpler, and more digestible by the XML folks. I wrote an email to Sam Ruby afterwards and said the model could be made simpler, more practical.

Returning to Mark Pilgrim’s article, he said that because the syntax is too complicated for the XML people to manually read and write, this makes RDF/XML untenable for Pie/Echo/Atom. He further states that we RDF/XML supporters can use XSLT to transform the syntax easily, and that when we have RDF support installed, we also have XSLT support installed.

Mark is in error.

First of all, an important objective of RDF/XML is dissemination of data. It’s not the processing it’s the data that’s critical; the more data is organized into RDF/XML, better yet full OWL, the more data is directly accessible by automated tools and bots from machines other than where the XML resides. In addition, data formatted as RDF/XML can be merged automatically, without having any prior knowledge of the vocabulary — another critical factor.

If a person who has the Pie/Echo/Atom syndication feed does not run an XSLT transform on the data to create RDF/XML versions of the data, the web bots then will need to do this, and this makes most data gathering techniques prohibitive.

The power behind RDF/XML is to have people generate data files that can be accessed by RDF tools, as Technorati is doing with our FOAF RDF/XML files at this very moment. Most webloggers I know don’t have RDF or XSLT capability or experience. They don’t have XML capability or experience, either, if it comes to that.

Second, what makes Mark think that people who work with RDF/XML are familiar with XSLT or have this installed automatically with our ‘tools’? I’ve worked with RDF/XML in six different programming languages, but I don’t work with XSLT — I think XSLT is the ugliest damn thing in the world to work with. I don’t have XSLT support installed.

Now, tools can be modified to add support to generate the RDF/XML format explicitly. I can create an MT template to do this, and I’m sure other tools can also do this. This helps RDF/XML users, but unfortunately, this doesn’t help Pie/Echo/Atom, or the Pie/Echo/Atom syndication users.

With Pie/Echo/Atom being vanilla XML, it becomes extremely difficult to add in new extendsion to the data. These have to become basically Pie/Echo/Atom extensions, which means they are single-purpose only, and there isn’t necessarily common agreement about what these extensions mean — the group has to work through each. Secondly, there is no automated way to add support for existing RDF/XML vocabularies that are getting widespread support, such as FOAF and others that are most likely going to be hitting the streets shortly. What has to happen is that transforms need to be made with FOAF and other RDF/XML vocabularies to XML, added into Pie/Echo/Atom, and then transformed back to RDF/XML.

Now, exactly what about this is ‘easier’?

In addition, I can access an RDF/XML file using a web bot or any kind of application, can pull out the statements, can store them, can query them all without making one change to code to add the new vocabulary. Not one change in code. The same ease of extensibility does not apply to vanilla XML. Period.

I asked a question, and no one at Pie/Echo/Atom answered it: Can you use regular XML tools on a Pie/Echo/Atom RDF/XML feed? Without transforms? If the answer is yes, then which format is the more exclusionary?

Regardless, I am disappointed at how this whole thing played out. I thought the RDF/XML community acted with integrity, first supporting the notion that Pie/Echo/Atom would not be RDF/XML and we would have to use transforms (though we knew this would cause problems later for Pie/Echo/Atom and others); secondly, when the issue was brought up again, supporting, in good faith, the creation of the proper RDF/XML model with hopes of further discussion, only to have our effort and our hopes tossed aside.

As for the semantic web — as Kendall Clark stated today, with the candidate release of OWL, we’re on our way. We were only waiting on the specs to get to recommendation state because there was too much flux previously. Now, we have a stable platform in which to work. In some ways, I’m glad we don’t have to worry about Pie/Echo/Atom and it can go its little deadend alley approach of being ‘pure’ XML, because we all have other things to do.

As for the semantic web, and being a dreamer — guilty as charged. I can see the ’semantic web’ in my mind, and it’s so real to me, I can reach out and touch it. If this is a pipedream, then leave the room, because I’m going to smoke it. And I’m going to help make it real.

I could use so many examples from history of dreamers who made things work in the face of those who said they couldn’t be done — proving that the sun doesn’t circle the earth, that we can fly, that we can walk on the moon and hopefully soon, on Mars. That time and light are effected by gravity and actually be able to demonstrate it. To discover a planet in another solar system. That we can talk to someone in England directly on the phone. That some day, we’d be able to sit at a computer, reading this.

That something like a transparent food could be created in all flavors, none of them natural. So put that on your scales, and see if you don’t get jello.

update

One other thing that I thought of after I wrote this article originally. Mark mentioned that through the process of creating the RDF/XML syntax, the RDF model generated questions about the order and the nature of two sets of data — the entries and the contributors. He thought this was a very helpful exercise.

However, Mark neglected to mention how it was the nature of RDF/XML semantically flavored syntax that drove this out. He also neglected to mention how vanilla XML was going to be used to enforce these set membership rules. So, how does one enforce or at a minimum document collection or container semantics using plain vanilla XML?

Categories
People

On personas

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

I have never been much of a game player. I liked some sports and participant games such as Tag and marbles, played volleyball and baseball and soccer, and I’m rather fond of Mahjong. But I never was one for cards, or board games, or anything of that nature. Monopoly leaves me cold.

When I started college, a big thing on campus at that time was role-playing games, such as Dungeons and Dragons. These were a novelty to me and I remember attending a day long D & D festival, marveling at the people that took it all so very seriously.

My indifference to games extends to computer and online role-playing games such as Quake or, well I can’t even think of the names of popular games. I was at one time heavily interested in three-dimensional computer graphics – I applied for but didn’t get a job at Lucas’ Industrial Light and Magic; however this interest was because of the technology and the beauty of the creations, not because I was a gamer.

I playacted when I was younger, and acted a bit in high school. But I quit high school and grew up. (Or was it, I grew up when I quit high school?) As I got a older I would sometimes put on a Social Mask, part of the same costume that included flowers and halter top one year, gold chains and disco dress another. Over time, though, I found that people would sometimes like the Mask more than me, and I came to realize the Mask was not my friend.

At Central University, when I returned to college as an old woman of 29, I wore the persona of Young Female College Student, and faced my 30th birthday behind anorexic walls and determined denial. As part of my ‘fitting in’, not the least of which was trying to share my young lover’s interests, I tried the role-playing games a couple of times but they had no appeal for me. I liked the pretty dice, but eventually became bored with the game and pretty young man.

Now, the only mask I wear is one of mud.

I must seem prosaic and lacking in imagination because I don’t care for role-playing. However, I can walk along Katy Trail and imagine the Little People calling to me as Owl from the bushes; I can see a story unfold before me, overlayed on reality and forming a double image in my mind until spilled forth on paper or keyboard; I can dive into a book and wrap the words around me, losing myself; I’ll look at a photograph or a painting or a piece of sculpture and I can sense menace, or joy, or sorrow, or even silliness from abstract curves and empty seats. If this isn’t imagination, I’ll take whatever it is and be content.

Some might point out that Burningbird is a role, a persona I take on as a weblogger. Yet the words I write as Burningbird are no different than the words I would write as Shelley, or Bb, or Shell or any name I’m called.

Does role-playing give us insight, and allow us greater freedom of expression? I can see how this would be, and perhaps I’m voluntarily stifling my creativity by not trying out different roles, especially when communicating. Other people’s reaction to the roles and the words spoken while in role must be enlightening – but then, how do I know they’re not also adopting roles when they respond?

Perhaps the roles are really bits of ourselves we slice off to stand in stark contrast to the blended whole, like the photographer who filters out the reds in a photo that will eventually be published in black & white. I do sometimes let my Evil Twin out to play, but I have a little secret for you – she’s me.

Are novelists like WG Sebald and poets like Sylvia Plath taking on roles when they write? Or are they using empathy rather than masks?

I think that role-playing for some of us happens internally rather than externally. I am talking with you and you don’t see the Joker or the Whore or the Mother or the Sadist but they’re here, inside me. And someday their response to you will find life, in a phrase or a sentence I write for a story. But by then, you’ll be inside me, too.

manitou.jpg

Categories
Connecting

How communication fails

I need to finish my “Semiotics of I” essay with its discussion of URIs, representations, and self (“I am linked, therefore I am”). However, the weather saps my energy as we enter our fifth day of hot weather alerts. Rather than profound writing on web esoterics, I’ll be happy if I can actually manage to get my clothes to the laundry room this morning.

Speaking of semantics, interesting thread over at the Pie/Echo/Atom syntax email list. The thread started innocently enough with Simon Willison:

 

Tim just mentioned a mandatory order for the <issued>, <modified> and <created> elements, hence my question. Will the final Atom specification include text along the lines of “client implementations MUST reject Atom feeds if they are invalid”.

The thread then spiraled wildly into discussions of well-formed XML versus badly formed HTML, sensible suggestions interspersed with the geek equivalents of “Yo dog’s a bitch and so’s your mama”.

However, a couple of comments arose on the thread that are worth yanking out of geekland and talking about openly. The first has to do with validity of data, not just validity of syntax. The second has to do with error notification.

One suggestion being circulated is that when an aggregator tries to consume an invalid Pie/Echo/Atom syndication feed, an email or some other notice is sent to the producer of said feed, telling them to fix their broken feed. This sounds feasible until you start looking at what happens in the real world.

For many webloggers, the feeds we produce are ones we’ve added to our tools following one person or another’s instructions. Most people provide the feed primarily because they’ve been asked to and have only a small understanding of what the template tags and the XML means. Many of us have tweaked our feeds, such as my removal of the content encoded element because I don’t publish my content in its entirety. Any one of these actions can introduce errors.

Now, consider the scenario: your feed is accessed by let’s say 100 aggregators, because you have 100 people subscribe to your feed. Each aggregator accesses the feed once per hour. Do the math: exactly how many email messages are going to be generated in one single day based on one simple easy to do mistake? I wasn’t aware that spam is an effective tool for helping people correct their mistake.

Simon Willison recognized this as a problem:

There’s also the problem of what could amount to a distributed DoS on anyone with a lot of traffic who accidentally invalidates their feed. Can you imagine if someone with a thousand subscribers dropped an unescaped ampersand in to their Atom feed? Within the hour they would have 1,000 error reports to wade through (assuming all aggregators followed the report-error part of the standard).

However, Simon then proposed acceptance of another idea:

A better practical solution is probably to follow Bill Kearney’s example in having a big directory of Atom feeds which publically flags any that are broken, gently embaressing the owner in to fixing the feed.

What did Bill Kearney say? The following:

Ignorance we can help with decent documentation and friendly validators.
Laziness we can combat with a rigorous validator and, frankly, fear of exposure.
Should folks find themselves desparate to remain ignorant and lazy, well,
they’re more than welcome to use a spec that better suits them. It’s been my
experience, however, that by educating people and setting good examples they dotend to come around..

This is probably the first time I’ve ever heard ‘embarrassment’ and ‘fear of exposure’ used as effective solutions to a technical problem.

Tim Bray wrote an essay on this, but he’s confused the types of error handling, as others in the list have done, and that leads me to my next and more serious concern: validating the data rather than validating the syntax. Asserting that the syntax is valid and well-formed XML is one thing; but start validating the data delimited with the syntax, and that’s where the problems are going to arise.

Sam mentions that the Pie/Echo/Atom validator has now been extended to check for dates:

Recently, the validator was improved to check for dates like February
30th. Within days, a feed was caught with this problem.

Well, that’s cool – but what does this have to do with the syntax? What if I want to generate a feed that has February 30th, as a joke or because I’m feeling contrary. No harm to the Pie/Echo/Atom syntax, is there? Not even the RDF Validator – and we all know that RDF is complex and just full of meaning – checks the data contained within the syntax requirements.

Scott Johnson suggests we go even further because of a misuse of the language tag. He writes:

Something like 50+% of asian weblogs are set to english when they display kanji.

There are linguistic algorithms that could be put into the validator as well as a user level prompt that asks them “Is this text in english” and if they answer No, it could deny the validation.

So when is technically correct but lying invalid?

Lying? After reading this I immediately went to my RSS 2.0 syndication template and changed the language to mn – Mongolian. Why? Because I’m both arbitrary and contrary. In other words, I’m a typical technology user.

Head’s up Alpha Geeks, you forgot one rule, one important lesson: know your customers. Don’t assume that the recipient of the ‘bad feed’ email is going to be a commercial feed provider, or someone who even gives a shit whether the feed is accurate or not – they’re only providing it because they were asked. Additionally, don’t assume that your rules over the syntax of the feed bleed over into imposing rules on the data of the feed, outside of those that are essential for the syntax. The more rules you add to Pie/Echo/Atom, the more rules are going to be broken.

(By the way – PEAW? You all are using a word that looks suspiciously like “pugh” for a name now?)