The History Section - IMHO - this section is not written with a neutral point of view (NPOV) It reads like a bit of an advertisement/promotion and therefore may be against breaks wikipedia policy See ==> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view Andrew' ]
Christine Sommo-FRBNY 19:04, 1 May 2008 (BST) Okay Andrew, I edited the History section a bit based on your comments. What say you now?
Andrew 20:50, 1 May 2008 (BST) Better - I was thinking of running some of this by our speech writers. They have a gift for simplicity of language. I don't think its as a whole as straight forward as we need it to be. What do you think?
Christine Sommo-FRBNY 13:49, 2 May 2008 (BST) Absolutely. Feel free to edit as you see fit.
Dan Chall-FRBNY 14:07, 2 May 2008 (BST)SDMX is listed as a reference, so presumably someone has the intention of adding content that refers to it.
-- Steven Bagshaw-BIS 14:11, 2 May 2008 (BST) I can't see how they're related really, so I'm going to remove it, but someone can add it back in with appropriate content later of course.
Steven Bagshaw-BIS 14:11, 2 May 2008 (BST) When transferring this to Wikipedia, don't copy over the "cbwiki.net Help" bit of course! :-)
Dan Chall-FRBNY 14:13, 2 May 2008 (BST) Also: do you think we should add content that refers to standard browsers, "live bookmarks," and popular aggregators such as Google Reader and My Yahoo?
Andrew Geraghty - BoC Is SDMX really not related? I would argue that SDMX also enhances CB web communications? To Dan's questions I think references to all the above are a good idea.
Steven Bagshaw-BIS 15:21, 2 May 2008 (BST) I think the connection between RSS-CB and SDMX is very indirect. From the user's point of view, what would they gain by clicking on the link to SDMX in terms of understanding or learning more about RSS-CB?
I had a look through a random sample of wikipedia pages that had a "see also" section and I think the connection between the entries is usually a lot stronger than RSS-CB to SDMX.
I'd also disagree with Dan's list, while I'm at it. :-) These are related to RSS, not RSS-CB. Why not just add a link to RSS and let the user go from there? Unless Google Reader etc. handled RSS-CB in a special way, I'm not sure they should be included.
Dan Chall-FRBNY 20:29, 2 May 2008 (BST) My thought was to show how RSS-CB can be used, not just for what purposes, but also how. The point is that Google Reader does not treat RSS-CB in a special way, and ignores the atomic fields, but still serves a particular audience.
Andrew Geraghty - BoC I have tried to make the entries more readable for non-geeks. In the introduction it read "it adds a more robust form of syndication that is able to accommodate machine and application uses that require structured information." I removed "machine and" would it be better still if we said its "to accommodate web services"?
Dan Chall-FRBNY 21:09, 2 May 2008 (BST) Not wanting a revert war, I'll explain my references to RSS 1.0 here. "a more robust form of syndication that is able to accommodate application uses that require structured information" really applies to RSS 1.0, not RSS-CB in particular. The particular instances of structured information are what RSS-CB provides, as well as the specific content going into various fields, but the capability of supporting structured information per se wasn't invented by us. The choice of RSS-1.0 vs 2.0 was important to the group and important to the functionality that RSS-CB provides. I appreciate the need to make the entries readable for non-geeks too, but I think we can explain what came from the choice to use RSS 1.0, and what came from us.
Andrew Geraghty - BoC Okay, so lets put in a detailed example to illustrate exactly that. The intention is not to take credit for others work. Would an explanation of where the choice came from not fit into the History section?
Dan Chall-FRBNY 17:55, 6 May 2008 (BST)I wasn't thinking it of a history issue, but rather definitional. I wasn't thinking of taking credit for the work of others, but I think we want to make clear what is the value added of RSS-CB as a concept. It isn't the existence of the structural tags readable by automated processes, because you can have that with generic RSS 1.0. It's the contrast that I was focusing on. "In addition to the traditional benefits of RSS, it adds a more robust form of syndication that is able to accommodate application uses that require structured information." That's true, but you can say the same about generic RSS 1.0. I was only suggesting that this feature derives from our choice to use RSS 1.0, and the content guidelines we provide to cover the specific features of central bank content is where we add the real value.
Andrew Geraghty - BoC 20:06, 6 May 2008 (BST) How about "The RSS-CB 1.1 module leverages the traditional benefits of RSS 1.0 (i.e. by providing a more robust form of syndication that is able to accommodate application uses that require structured information)while supplementing specific elements that are relevant to the syndication of Central Bank content."Italic text ?
Yes, that addresses exactly what I thought the article should convey. Thanks!
Andrew Geraghty - BoC 20:06, 6 May 2008 (BST) Change made, When should we upload this to wikipedia? I was hoping sooner rather than later and we could continue our discussioons there?
Christine Sommo-FRBNY 22:07, 6 May 2008 (BST) I am also in favor of action. I think a quick e-mail to the core RSS-CB group asking them to review this page and make changes or express objections by a deadline is appropriate though. I can do that tomorrow. Do you agree?
Andrew Geraghty - BoC 14:08, 7 May 2008 (BST) Agreed
Steven Bagshaw-BIS 07:56, 22 May 2008 (BST) I've removed all the content moved to the Wikipedia page, so there's no confusion. Congrats to all who contributed to the page!
Andrew Geraghty - BoC Would some of that content be useful on our RSS-CS home page? Or would it be redundant?
Steven Bagshaw-BIS 16:11, 22 May 2008 (BST) Good idea I think. And even more so to have some of it feed into the FAQ page.
Steve are you volunteering?
Steven Bagshaw-BIS 08:35, 23 May 2008 (BST): I've done most of the FAQ page as it stands at the moment (well, the answers part anyway), so I have been trying to "volunteer" others for several months. :-)
But I will also have a look at what we can "re-purpose", perhaps later next week.