I picked up last year that Tantek was using his personal website to author all his data from. He is a champion of ‘fighting for the user’ but my initial take on this was that I need an ultra smart authoring tool to cater for all those publishing activities I can perform today and more and more tomorrow. However, use third party tools then the data is then ‘owned’ by that service. However, for some you will need to use local tools to get the data to the service e.g. hardware, camera and local uploading tool to get it to e.g. flickr.com so I will have a local copy (my pc, Sony, local software microsoft and online yahoo flickr) so I need lots of local tools to get to the online service that now ‘owns’ my data! This is a fascinating tension and a couple of blog post give th arguments, Decentralized tools and self aggregate, Zeldman and Tanteks, self publish and copy everywhere.
Matthew Kumin blog post entitled The Web of Intent is Coming (sooner than you think) gives an excellent introduction on how the next generation of tools for individuals will bring the web of Intent to the fore. He lists 1 to 5 the key ingredients of the changes, its interesting to note the use of the word ‘integrated’, it appears in connection with the ‘integration of search and publishing’. In fact 4 of the 5 bullet points talk about Publishing, only bullet point 5 focuses solely on the individual and it is bullet point no. 5 that fits in with the goals of the lifestylelinking project.
It is surprising to see the publishing side of the question so prominent. I think the reason for this presentation of Intent by Matthew is because he knows the publishers (any author of content) wants to contribute and participate in the right context online, thus the integration of the search side gives them this view. However, if each individual has their own no. 5 ‘curated feeds’ then they would have all the information they require to author their contributions. The other reason I can think of is that there is a school of thought that the current authoring CMS (content management tools) could do better at expressing the intent of the publisher, wrapping the text in tags or an ontology for the linked data community etc. The observation to provide here is that the text, ie the words the author expresses is the most important articulation in the whole publishing process and subsequent ‘markup’ or ‘tagging’ is secondary to the communication expressed by the publisher. This should not be forgotten, the primary intent of the author is what they author not what they wrap it in.