• Vote on Oct 14!

  

• Search for:
• 
  This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 Canada License.

• Similar Posts

  • sharecropping clarification
  • Dossier vs. Live Document
  • Portfolio vs. Dossier
  • University 2.0?
  • re: should it all be miscellaneous?

• Pages

  • About
    • Bookshelf
    • Colophon
    • Contact
    • Music
    • My (not so) Secret Identities
    • Presentations
  • Archives
  • Asides
  • Photos

• My Other Places

  • Mindfulseeing.com (photoblog)
  • Flickr/dnorman
  • Teaching & Learning Centre
  • The University of Calgary

• Recent Comments

  • Mike Caulfield on Is there such a thing as “too open”?
  • Alec Couros on Is there such a thing as “too open”?
  • Cole on UCalgaryBlogs update
  • Chris L on Is there such a thing as “too open”?
  • Cole on Is there such a thing as “too open”?

• Meta

  • Log in
  • Entries RSS
  • Comments RSS
  • WordPress.org

I’ve been thinking a lot lately about publishing things individually, on my own, as opposed to scattering stuff across the various services out there. Partially, it’s because of some sense of wanting to retain control and ownership of what I do. Partially, it’s a thought exercise to help figure out what it would really mean for an individual to fully maintain their own digital identity as opposed to relying on any number of ephemeral third parties to enable that. It’s all still quite unformed in my head, but here’s a really basic and oversimplified diagram of what I’m thinking about:

“Scattered” publishing involves a bunch of people navigating a bunch of services in order to find relevant bits published by the people they care about. “Individual” publishing involves individuals managing their content in one place, and letting the people they care about have access in any way they need.

Aggregators play important roles in both models, but in “scattered” the aggregator’s primary role is to pull decentralized bits of a person’s various bits of content back into the context of that person, and then in the context of the reader’s personal network. In “individual” the aggregator is primarily pulling people together, and filtering the subsets of a person’s content to meet the needs of each reader.

David suggested in his opening comments yesterday that “content is infrastructure.” He was (I think) meaning to imply that content is an enabling platform, and that if a robust library of open content is available, that individuals and groups will be able to build new things from that library. Things that can’t be predicted by the librarians and publishers. Things that are evolutionary and revolutionary. I completely agree that having freely available and reusable content is an extremely important factor in promoting education and community programs, especially in regions without the resources to build all content from scratch.

But, the “content as infrastructure” analogy doesn’t sit well with me. Infrastructure is stuff like electricity, plumbing, roads and communication networks. Infrastructure’s value is that you don’t have to think about it - it’s Just There™, and is “always on”. You flick a switch, and don’t need or want to think about the electrical infrastructure that heats up the filament in the bulb. You flush the john, and don’t need or want to think about the water supply and sewage infrastructure. Hopefully, you won’t have to.

But - content is one thing that you need to think about. It can’t be pushed so far down the stack that it becomes a mindless and invisible component, akin to electricity. Content needs to be mindful, contextual, active, and interactive. It’s not just a series of bits to be transported via TCP/IP (which could be considered infrastructure) - it’s the context for a conversation.