A topic: URI scheme? -- John Panzer / Google [email protected] / abstractioneer.org <http://www.abstractioneer.org/> / @jpanzer
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 5:22 AM, Alexis Richardson <[email protected]>wrote: > 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 >
