<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:creativeCommons="http://backend.userland.com/creativeCommonsRssModule"	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: On Metacrap</title>
	<atom:link href="http://opencontent.org/blog/archives/256/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://opencontent.org/blog/archives/256</link>
	<description>pragmatism over zeal</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 17 Mar 2010 06:59:35 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Chris L</title>
		<link>http://opencontent.org/blog/archives/256/comment-page-1#comment-2011</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris L</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 29 Apr 2006 01:34:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://opencontent.org/blog/archives/256#comment-2011</guid>
		<description>This sounds like something I have been telling people to watch for since tagging first hit the radar screen-- tagging is the first step. Algorithmic clusters are a nice second step. But the real fruit will come when the linkages, filters, and predictors go multiple layers deep-- not just on connections, but on behaviors. If people don&#039;t see this it&#039;s no surprise that they don&#039;t see how fantastically able such systems can be in the future and feel that tagging will eventually just lead to a big, fractious mess.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This sounds like something I have been telling people to watch for since tagging first hit the radar screen&#8211; tagging is the first step. Algorithmic clusters are a nice second step. But the real fruit will come when the linkages, filters, and predictors go multiple layers deep&#8211; not just on connections, but on behaviors. If people don&#8217;t see this it&#8217;s no surprise that they don&#8217;t see how fantastically able such systems can be in the future and feel that tagging will eventually just lead to a big, fractious mess.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: elearning@kaiserslautern &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Why there is a need for Web2.0 in e-Learning</title>
		<link>http://opencontent.org/blog/archives/256/comment-page-1#comment-1637</link>
		<dc:creator>elearning@kaiserslautern &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Why there is a need for Web2.0 in e-Learning</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Apr 2006 09:57:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://opencontent.org/blog/archives/256#comment-1637</guid>
		<description>[...] In this post, David Wiley is writing about the article Metacrap of Cory Doctorow. He also sees a high potential in the use of folksonomys in e-Learning: You simply cannot annotate the TRUTH for a Learning Object. There are not only objective (e.g., date and size), but also subjective metadata. How difficult is a Learning Object??? For which target groups can it be used? We can&#8217;t decide this for all possible use cases - let the people using the Learning Objects decide on this metadata! [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] In this post, David Wiley is writing about the article Metacrap of Cory Doctorow. He also sees a high potential in the use of folksonomys in e-Learning: You simply cannot annotate the TRUTH for a Learning Object. There are not only objective (e.g., date and size), but also subjective metadata. How difficult is a Learning Object??? For which target groups can it be used? We can&#8217;t decide this for all possible use cases &#8211; let the people using the Learning Objects decide on this metadata! [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Danny</title>
		<link>http://opencontent.org/blog/archives/256/comment-page-1#comment-1635</link>
		<dc:creator>Danny</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 02 Apr 2006 20:21:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://opencontent.org/blog/archives/256#comment-1635</guid>
		<description>I don&#039;t think Cory&#039;s piece was dead on when he wrote it, any more than it is now. It is in itself a series of strawmen, implying that people that believed who metadata to be useful insisted on it being 100% pure and accurate. Not so then, not so now. He generally paints metadata in a bad light, but the arguments...well, how about &quot;In meta-utopia, the lab-coated guardians of epistemology sit down and rationally map out a hierarchy of ideas, something like this:&quot; - he proceeds to display the flaws of such an approach. There are no &quot;lab coated guardians&quot;, or at least none that are mapping such hierarchies who are unaware of the problems raised. Straw. Man. 

The problem was that a lot of people seemed to accept the arguments of the piece at face value, and personally I encountered increased resistance to the notion of metadata having value (in the context of RDF). It&#039;s taken a while for systems like del.icio.us to appear that make really obvious counterpoints to Cory&#039;s thesis, but it was bound to happen. Just seems like good ideas got pushback based on mythology.

An interesting way of reading the piece is to drop the &quot;meta&quot; part of &quot;metadata&quot; wherever it&#039;s used. Pretty much all the points he makes on the lousiness of metadata apply equally well to data. Yet that stuff seems to be very useful. So I recommend dropping the &quot;Meta&quot; from the title to get a more accurate description of the content. 

While I&#039;m ranting....I don&#039;t understand why you suggest folksonomic and Semantic Web approaches &quot;strictly speaking shouldn&#039;t work&quot; together. Seems like a match made in heaven to me.

See also: http://www.holygoat.co.uk/projects/tags/</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t think Cory&#8217;s piece was dead on when he wrote it, any more than it is now. It is in itself a series of strawmen, implying that people that believed who metadata to be useful insisted on it being 100% pure and accurate. Not so then, not so now. He generally paints metadata in a bad light, but the arguments&#8230;well, how about &#8220;In meta-utopia, the lab-coated guardians of epistemology sit down and rationally map out a hierarchy of ideas, something like this:&#8221; &#8211; he proceeds to display the flaws of such an approach. There are no &#8220;lab coated guardians&#8221;, or at least none that are mapping such hierarchies who are unaware of the problems raised. Straw. Man. </p>
<p>The problem was that a lot of people seemed to accept the arguments of the piece at face value, and personally I encountered increased resistance to the notion of metadata having value (in the context of RDF). It&#8217;s taken a while for systems like del.icio.us to appear that make really obvious counterpoints to Cory&#8217;s thesis, but it was bound to happen. Just seems like good ideas got pushback based on mythology.</p>
<p>An interesting way of reading the piece is to drop the &#8220;meta&#8221; part of &#8220;metadata&#8221; wherever it&#8217;s used. Pretty much all the points he makes on the lousiness of metadata apply equally well to data. Yet that stuff seems to be very useful. So I recommend dropping the &#8220;Meta&#8221; from the title to get a more accurate description of the content. </p>
<p>While I&#8217;m ranting&#8230;.I don&#8217;t understand why you suggest folksonomic and Semantic Web approaches &#8220;strictly speaking shouldn&#8217;t work&#8221; together. Seems like a match made in heaven to me.</p>
<p>See also: <a href="http://www.holygoat.co.uk/projects/tags/" rel="nofollow">http://www.holygoat.co.uk/projects/tags/</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: links for 2006-04-02 &#8212; Constructictism Archive</title>
		<link>http://opencontent.org/blog/archives/256/comment-page-1#comment-1634</link>
		<dc:creator>links for 2006-04-02 &#8212; Constructictism Archive</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 02 Apr 2006 04:23:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://opencontent.org/blog/archives/256#comment-1634</guid>
		<description>[...] On Metacrap at iterating toward openness (tags: folksonomie web 2.0 MA metadata flickr delicious) [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] On Metacrap at iterating toward openness (tags: folksonomie web 2.0 MA metadata flickr delicious) [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic Page Served (once) in 0.154 seconds -->
