This is interesting, because I think we may be more concerned with the
"topic model" than the content filtering.  So we have some questions
here:

1) What is the current thinking / discussion / issues about the topic
model?  I've searched the recent postings trying to find references
and more specifics....is there a URL I can look at?

2) In the current spec, a topic is the same as a feed URL from the
publisher.  But could the hub aggregate and / or segregate content
from incoming feed data and create its own topics?

(For example, in item 2, our hub would aggregate press releases and
the segregate them based on industry / language / geography into
multiple topics that users can subscribe to).

3) Separately, we're also interested in being able to filter by tagged
field values to create filtered feeds.

-Danny

On Jun 29, 7:44 pm, Brett Slatkin <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 4:35 PM, Alexis Richardson <[email protected]> 
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 12:31 AM, Brett Slatkin <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 3:30 PM, Alexis Richardson
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 11:09 PM, Bob Wyman <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>> Now that we've got substantial experience with topic-based PubSubHubbub,
>
> >>> With all due respect - I don't think we have enough yet.  The spec is
> >>> still unstable.
>
> >> Specific wording aside, Alexis, it's a fine time to be talking about
> >> these ideas, right?
>
> > I don't wish to diss Bob's push in this direction.  But I'd like to
> > see the topic model 'settle down' before looking at content.  I don't
> > believe we are there yet.
>
> Gotcha. That's fine. I think everyone wants things to move slowly.
> This is the first I've seen of Bob's ideas in this direction and I've
> got to let it marinate in my brain a bit. But I'd imagine some new
> concerns about the existing spec may fall out of it, which is probably
> a good thing, even if we all collectively decide that they should or
> should not be in scope.
>
> -Brett

Reply via email to