* Martin Atkins <[email protected]> [2009-01-13 03:00]: > I suppose the general case is that when the user adds > additional metadata their entry becomes a pointer to the > original item rather than the item itself, so the id (and > everything else, for that matter) is different in this case.
Exactly. And the mere act of bookmarking generates additional metadata – specifically the time at which the item was bookmarked. Plus, if I follow the favourites of a user, and they star something that was uploaded 3 years ago, I don’t want my feed reader to show the item at the very bottom of my unread items list. What matters to me is when the friend/user bookmarked it. * James Holderness <[email protected]> [2009-01-12 23:50]: > How many times do you think I want to view that entry? Depends. If I’ve seen the entry on the feeds of one of the people I subscribe to directly, then I probably don’t care about its instance in the general popular items feed. But I usually care to be made aware of the fact that the people I subscribe to have bookmarked it; so if I saw it on the popular items feed or the feed of the friend who uploaded it, I would still want to see that the stuff-spotting user I follow has also bookmarked it. If the popular stuff feed has relevant annotations that the other feeds have not, I might even still care to see that one too. In general I care about all the content/annotations added uniquely by each of the feed publishers. I imagine you don’t care as much, though. Different people want different things. It would be nice if we had a link relation that makes a stronger assertion than `related` does, about the linked resource being the subject that the entry describes, with each being distinct resources. That would let feed readers handle cases like this tripple-publishing more intelligently, f.ex. summarise them all in a single display unit. Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>
