[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [kGen] RE: [kEv] Universal Metadata - everybody's doing it...
Martin,
Thanks for posting this. I found the links to your blog and Leonardo's very
interesting. The link to the ACAP website [1] was in Daniel's original post,
which I cut.
I agree with you that standards require a different level of rigour in
engineering contexts. If we want companies to manufacture components that
work together, we have to get strongly prescriptive about their properties.
But, if I may be permitted to use your analogy about the poles, I connect my
CD to the amplifier through something called a phono socket, which a lot of
people call an RCA socket.
I have a great deal of respect for Leonardo Chiariglione; MPEG is a
formidable achievement. His definition of a standard is pretty good, but I
prefer the ISO definition:
"[A standard is] a document, established by consensus and approved by a
recognized body, that provides, for common and repeated use, rules,
guidelines or characteristics for activities or their results, aimed at the
achievement of the optimum degree of order in a given context.
"Standards should be based on the consolidated results of science,
technology and experience, and aimed at the promotion of optimum community
benefits.
"Important benefits of standardization are improvement of the suitability of
products, processes and services for their intended purposes, prevention of
barriers to trade and facilitation of technological co-operation." [2]
I love that phrase "optimum degree of order in a given context", almost as
much as I love the IETF maxim "rough consensus and running code" [3] We're
working in a digital ecosystem that has human and non-human actors, and
doing our best to create order so that we can have a lot more freedom.
As to the ACAP initiative, I'm sorry if you thought I was saying it was
wrong. I wouldn't call anything "wrong" in the standards arena as long as
there was a community that had a common interest and a problem they could
solve collectively. I disagreed with their statement that "It's hard for
anyone to make content available for access and use on the network without
any rules", and you were quite right to point out that I was thinking like
an economist, rather than like an engineer.
For anyone who is interested, here is a link to a good conference paper
about the increasing importance of private consortia like Kendra in the
standards making arena. [4]
Looking forward to Friday.
Best wishes,
Gordon Rae
References
(beware, some URLs may break over 2 lines)
[1] ACAP FAQ
http://www.the-acap.org/faqs.php
[2] ISO Glossary
http://isotc.iso.org/livelink/livelink.exe/fetch/2000/2122/687806/Glossary.h
tm?nodeid=27789
[3] Quoted by Tim Berners-Lee
http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/UU.html
[4] Between public and private - the nature of today's standards
http://www.york.ac.uk/res/e-society/projects/24/Bunduchistandardisationworks
hop2004.pdf
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-k-events@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-k-events@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Martin Springer
Sent: 02 March 2007 16:43
To: k-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: k-events@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [kGen] RE: [kEv] Universal Metadata - everybody's doing it...
Gordon,
I agree with you that standards don't make sense for metadata
describing the meaning users assign to content. You may call a song
"Motown" and I may call it "Soul" and we can both be right.
On the other hand there are fields where standards for metadata make
sense - for instance if these metadata describe an interface of a
device. You may call a pole positive and I may call it
negative. Though a philosopher would claim that we can both be right
many engineers would disagree.
Leonardo Chiariglione defines standardisation as [1]
the process by which individuals of a group recognise the advantage
of all doing certain things in an agreed way and codify that
agreement.
Metadata for distributing content include metadata about the copyright
(licenses). Legal agreements (contracts) between people who exchange
content should be based on a common understanding about the meaning of
the legal terms. If users use devices to exchange copyrighted content
the standardisation of the legal terms makes sense.
Maybe ACAP is a good deal less ambitious than Kendra, but I can
interprete it correctly what they try to achieve is not wrong. Mark
Bide from ACAP has posted some comments on my blog [2].
Please let me know the URL of your posting.
Cheers,
Martin
[1] http://www.chiariglione.org/ride/need_for_standards.htm
[2] http://camorra.org/swann/2007/03/01/publishers-drm/
"JG Rae" <jgr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> This is an interesting development, but the first thing I read on their
> website was
>
> "It's hard for anyone to make content available for access and use on the
> network without any rules."
>
> Actually, guys, it isn't hard at all. I remember designing EDI standards
in
> the 80's, and in those days it was a real slog, but one of the great
> innovations of Web 2.0 is doing metadata by tagging, instead of by
> taxonomies. If I call something "Motown" and you call it "soul", we don't
> have to have a committee meeting to decide who's right. We can both be
> right, because both tags give a positive response to different questions.
>
> Metadata for distributing content online is about answering "Please may
> I..." questions, as opposed to "What is..." questions. Kendra has always
> been well-placed in that respect, thanks to Daniel's initial slogan of "I
> want stuff I like and I want to be able to pay for it" and we are quite
> lucky that the paradigm is catching up with the attitude.
>
> I think it's quite important that the Metadata Summit asks people "what do
> we want to do, that we think better metadata is going to help us do?" I
> won't enlarge on that here, in case not everybody's following this thread,
> but I will post something on the morning (UK morning).
>
> Having read a little deeper into their FAQ, it turns out ACAP are trying
to
> develop something to replace the robots.txt protocol so that sites can
allow
> conditional access for search engines accessing text-based media. That's a
> good deal less ambitious than Kendra's signposting, discovery and
> syndication. Their FAQ is very defensive; it's all about how it's not a
> defensive move to stop Google.
>
> Regards, Gordon
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-k-events@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-k-events@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Daniel Harris
> Sent: 01 March 2007 08:40
> To: k-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; k-events@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [kEv] Universal Metadata - everybody's doing it...
>
> Take a look at what Jollyon sent me...
>
> ACAP (Automated Content Access Protocol) is a joint initiative by the
World
> Association of Newspapers, the International Publishers Association and
the
>
>
>
--
Martin Springer GPG-ID 1024D/23058565
Parkstrasse 51a PHONE +49.621.5668014
D-67061 Ludwigshafen MOBILE +49.172.3036702