kmarks at technorati.com
Wed Oct 26 22:45:16 PDT 2005
On Oct 26, 2005, at 4:54 PM, Rohit Khare wrote:
> Moral: don't try to encode machine-readable (and machine-actionable)
> moral judgments. hReview is much more innocuous because it's primarily
> human-readable today, not the basis of a robot censor.
I wrote about why technology should be amoral yesterday:
Human readable is good.
On Oct 26, 2005, at 5:35 PM, Tantek Çelik wrote:
>> However, if the poster was actually asking
>> if there was a general-purpose term that might get widespread
>> adoption on the web, I think we need something more general.
> IMHO: Let folks tag things, and let the terms emerge (folksonomically),
> rather than diving into yet another top-down taxonomy rathole.
This makes sense, definitely.
>> My suspicion is that the RSS/Atom community will probably standardize
>> on something first
> Really? Based on what experience?
>> (since they'll mirror the issues that led movies,
>> TV, and records to get ratings),
> Why would you choose those heavily regulated parallels as opposed to
> *internet* parallels like email, netnews, instant messaging, mp3s,
> none of which have any kind of critical mass of official ratings.
Actually, the MPAA ratings are an example of an industry effort to head
off regulation. See
You can look at them as a converged tag system to some extent. Video
game ratings are similar - fending off regulation by self-imposed
More information about the microformats-discuss