> The thread lists each post in the header, and each post lists
> any parents or children it may have. By suggesting this, are you
> imagining this kind of scenario:
>
> 1. a post ken1 is made, starting a thread
>
> 2. a reponse, lena1, is made indicating ken1 as parent and
> "tracking back" to ken1 who adds lena1 as a child
>
> 3. a response, ken2, is made indicating lena1 as parent and
> "tracking back" to lena1 who adds ken2 as a child
>
> -etc.
Yes and no I suppose - I wasn't really thinking that far ahead, just trying to see what you'd need to represent the thread in an RSS friendly fashion. But I'm sure the way you describe it would be a possible scenario.
> Is this correct: this would allow one to store, with/in each
> post, a bit of ThreadsML that represents just the post and any
> parents and children--and from this, an application could
> assemble (aggregate) a complete ThreadsML thread? For example,
> the ken1 post could store with/in it this plus some minimal
> header:
> <item rdf:about="
http://example.org/ken1"&___GT___;
> <title>Start of thread</title>
> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Honey, I'm
> home!</p>]]></content:encoded>
> <link>
http://example.org/ken1</link&___GT___;;
> <dc:date>2003-05-17T12:45:59+01:00</dc:date>
> <dc:creator>
> <foaf:Person foaf:name="Ken">
> <foaf:email
> rdf:resource="ken@twounlimited.com" />
> </foaf:Person>
> </dc:creator>
> <tbd:parents />
> <tbd:children>
> <rdf:Seq>
> <rdf:li
> rdf:resource="
http://example.org/lena1"; />
> </rdf:Seq>
> </tbd:children>
> </item>
Ouch, that got escaped for Outlook...I think I recognise it though. Yep, although I think the centralised server idea is a good one, I reckon setting things up so that they *can* be pretty loosely distributed would leave the options open.
> One of the things I wonder about in this is what exactly the
> start of a thread is. I mean, in general, does a thread always
> have a singular start? Can a post in the middle of a thread be
> the start of a new thread? How would that be expressed?
Interesting thought. Like a CVS branch, then - I don't see why not. We'd need an extra term or two to express this, but it could well be useful later.
> With the iCite net, I am designing it to allow for any child
> post to declare any post in the hierarchy of parents the start
> of the thread. So each post says:
>
> I am part of a thread that starts at: some-uri
> (optional) I am responding to (my parent is): another-uri
>
> Leaving out the optional second declaration would suggest a
> "flat" conversation type thread, where the sequence of posts
> could only be determined by each post's timestamp.
>
> Any thoughs on this?
I hadn't thought of identifying the head of the thread, but for the branch idea I guess that's what would be happening. In fact both parts could be optional - "I am the head of a new thread". Yep, I reckon this is worth pursuing.
Cheers,
Danny.
