<?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/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Seeing the Communication Forest through the Folksonomy Trees</title>
	<atom:link href="http://bokardo.com/archives/communication-forest-folksonomy-trees/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://bokardo.com/archives/communication-forest-folksonomy-trees/</link>
	<description>Interface Design &#38; UX by Joshua Porter</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 28 Sep 2011 20:28:57 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
	<item>
		<title>By: Bud Gibson</title>
		<link>http://bokardo.com/archives/communication-forest-folksonomy-trees/#comment-355</link>
		<dc:creator>Bud Gibson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Mar 2005 17:17:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://bokardo.com/archives/60/#comment-355</guid>
		<description>Josh, we had some further development after iteration 2 and much email discussion among a group of folks.  What I see likely to happen is as follows:

1.  A refinement of iteration 2 to take into account different sorts of semantic markup one may want to apply with different use cases.

2.  Ultimately, something that feels a bit like schematron validation for xFolk, i.e., a sort of acid test to back up some of the verbal claims.  This is my idea and will have to be thought out a bit more so that it helps rather than adding complexity.

A real issue has been that, unlike other instances of xml applications (vocabularies) that you make up yourself, xhtml has some real usage patterns built around it and, to some degree, camps of usage.

I remain optimistic and am waiting for the folks I emailed to respond before surging forward.  Building group consensus while building the airplane.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Josh, we had some further development after iteration 2 and much email discussion among a group of folks.  What I see likely to happen is as follows:</p>
<p>1.  A refinement of iteration 2 to take into account different sorts of semantic markup one may want to apply with different use cases.</p>
<p>2.  Ultimately, something that feels a bit like schematron validation for xFolk, i.e., a sort of acid test to back up some of the verbal claims.  This is my idea and will have to be thought out a bit more so that it helps rather than adding complexity.</p>
<p>A real issue has been that, unlike other instances of xml applications (vocabularies) that you make up yourself, xhtml has some real usage patterns built around it and, to some degree, camps of usage.</p>
<p>I remain optimistic and am waiting for the folks I emailed to respond before surging forward.  Building group consensus while building the airplane.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

