On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 10:30 PM, Danny Briere <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 my part, I would see that as a natural extension. How would such topics be created and managed? alexis > (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
