Monica

On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 11:45 PM, Monica Keller <[email protected]> wrote:
> for hubs to provide
> "Virtual" Topic Urls. One example of this would be a firehose url with
> parameters for filtering. Also outside the scope of the spec would be
> for hubs to promote their virtual topic urls like Julien just did.
>
> This will be helpful as subscribers don't have to subscribe to raw
> topic urls one by one and can use the virtual or aggregated topic urls
> from the Service Provider

I think "virtual topics" are a very good idea and a way to open the
door to (federatable) subscriptions for filtered streams of many
kinds.

alexis


> Thoughts ?
>
> On Jul 1, 10:13 am, Julien Genestoux <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> Hey, I don't mean to interrupt... but maybe this is part of the conversation
>> : Superfeedr announced its track feature today 
>> :http://blog.superfeedr.com/track/filter/xmpp/pubsubhubbub/track/
>>
>> You can subscribe to keywords accross all the feeds that we host (more than
>> 800 hubs now) or the feeds we have for the default hub.
>>
>> We want to get more filtering done... but it's obviously a quite complex
>> task with high frequency publishing!
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> julien
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 7:04 PM, John Panzer <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > 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

Reply via email to