OPML, Audible, and Attention

OPML, Audible, and Attention

Summary: Audible's proffer of a proprietary format for podcasting generated a lot of heat and light, including some from Doc Searls that reverberated through a Gillmor Daily conversation we had that I'm now releasing in two parts, the first of which I just posted. At about the same time, Nick Bradbury and I released a joint post about attention, OPML, and namespaces.

SHARE:
TOPICS: Big Data
1

Audible's proffer of a proprietary format for podcasting generated a lot of heat and light, including some from Doc Searls that reverberated through a Gillmor Daily conversation we had that I'm now releasing in two parts, the first of which I just posted. At about the same time, Nick Bradbury and I released a joint post about attention, OPML, and namespaces. This evening in Washington Dave Winer released an advisory that likely will make what Nick and I are suggesting, and many other things, possible. And in New York, AttentionTrust cofounder Seth Goldstein released a post announcing his new attention service. As Seth says:

One final observation: the Internet business path is about to split.  One direction leads to an open approach to data, governed by the principles of transparency and publicity.  The other direction leads to a closed approach to data, focused on privacy and opacity: the black box.  Both directions have legitimate and consistent end-user benefits and economic rationales .  The danger is getting stuck in the middle:  (1) looking to increase your edge but not locking up the information it is based on; or (2) promoting your open-ness but not sharing data back to the system.

I asked my wife to think of a song, any song. She said: Daydream Believer. Don't know how she does it.

 

Topic: Big Data

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

1 comment
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • Dream On

    Day Dreamer is about right.

    I can see where Seth is coming from with qualified leads means on-line advertising really works for a living. I even see where securitizing aggregate attention data makes sense to channels - taking the risks of a lack of attention span off their books.

    Is it just me, or does Seth lose the plot after that point? It seems to me that the great thing about Web 2.0 is that we are all publishers now. Plus, if my attention has value I want to trade that value on my own account - not see it aggregated to create a link that leads back to me, and only me, and only that part of me interested in parting with my hard-earned, and only chased down that link by the highest bidder(s).

    Perhaps Seth is right, perhaps the average Joe's apathy toward the value of his attention is just an opportunity to be exploited?
    Stephen Wheeler