<?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: Tagging, ontology, and structured information</title>
	<atom:link href="http://configures.sarahelkins.org/2007/10/24/tagging-ontology-and-structured-information/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://configures.sarahelkins.org/2007/10/24/tagging-ontology-and-structured-information/</link>
	<description>Figure it out ... with me!</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 24 Oct 2011 12:49:13 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=abc</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: ConFigures &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Fielded wikis and LibraryThing, a year and a half later</title>
		<link>http://configures.sarahelkins.org/2007/10/24/tagging-ontology-and-structured-information/comment-page-1/#comment-64978</link>
		<dc:creator>ConFigures &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Fielded wikis and LibraryThing, a year and a half later</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 04 Jul 2009 23:25:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://configures.sarahelkins.org/?p=57#comment-64978</guid>
		<description>[...] I&#8217;ve had some experience working with fielded wikis since I wrote disgruntledly about LibraryThing&#8217;s implementation of them in October 2007.  I knew at the time of their potential for being able to extract info for other purposes, but I had come into using wikis with a great appreciation for the way they fostered the organic organization of information, and fielded wikis go against that organic growth to a degree.   My thanks again to LT&#8217;s Tim Spalding for his response, which got me thinking beyond my initial reaction.  I had followed up later that month with this acknowledgement: I can see why an organization might wish to encourage certain kinds of contributions through structured fields and other input mechanisms. &#8212; Tagging, Ontology, and Structured Information [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] I&#8217;ve had some experience working with fielded wikis since I wrote disgruntledly about LibraryThing&#8217;s implementation of them in October 2007.  I knew at the time of their potential for being able to extract info for other purposes, but I had come into using wikis with a great appreciation for the way they fostered the organic organization of information, and fielded wikis go against that organic growth to a degree.   My thanks again to LT&#8217;s Tim Spalding for his response, which got me thinking beyond my initial reaction.  I had followed up later that month with this acknowledgement: I can see why an organization might wish to encourage certain kinds of contributions through structured fields and other input mechanisms. &#8212; Tagging, Ontology, and Structured Information [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

