7 thoughts on “stepping backwards

  1. I think it’s really important to give people a reason to create data, and an immediate ROI for doing so…

    eg. javascript & PHP libraries which augment your site, validators, services which consume your data and do something neat with it which you can try out right away.

    Unless the company gets something in return, why waste the time and bandwidth on this stuff the academics waffle on about but doesn’t make you money? (we need quick easy-to-understand answers to that question)

  2. You wrote: “At the end of the day it seems like making your decisions based on things you want to enable is a good way forward. Are you trying to get your content to show up nicely on Facebook or Google–or both? …or are you trying to do something else, like advertise some RIS citation metadata that is related to an HTML page so a citation manager can pick it up?” That’s the point. Most discussions about which technologies to use, miss a clear goal. In the end most standards are just defined by concrete applications: we want to make data accessible to to Mendeley and Zotero, Google, Facebook etc. – so we must give it in forms they want, no matter how ill-designed these forms are.

  3. To expand Jakob’s comment, I always recommend trying to imagine being a freelance or internal webdev: why would I go to my client and suggest they pay me to add this feature? I can make that case for SEO, for Google/Facebook/Twitter sharing, etc. For complex XML metadata cathedrals it’s a lot harder to make the case that we should spend an enormous amount of time implementing a cumbersome spec in the hope that it will prove useful in the future.

Leave a Reply