Jim Rapoza made some good points concerning the emerging need for semantic content. He's probably only seeing the tip of the iceberg in terms of semantic adoption. I believe that semantic tagging is occurring at a much greater adoption rate than known (or detectable) simply because if semantic systems work well, you hardly know what their architecture is.

RSS is a good example - most of us refer to content syndication as RSS. This is a technically incorrect description since it is used for hundreds of implementations that include things as diverse as gas pump pricing updates and knowledge syndication between enterprise portals; both are cases where newsreaders and humans are not involved.

In my view, RSS has reached mainstream use in cases where it is not referred to as RSS.

"The big obstacle to reaching the Semantic Web is that the semantic tags need to be added to give meaning to all the content. Content providers need to start using RDF and OWL when creating their content. As of now, few do because few are aware of the benefits." -- Jim Rapoza

Indeed - we sell a product called MyST SmartSpace™ that provides a Web services framework for extending RSS (and RDF) feeds to Microsoft Office documents.

As indicated in the article of the same title (by Susan Feldman), knowledge worker output is difficult to measure, so it's not surprising that opportunity costs relative to information resources are also tough to quantify. However, it's pretty easy to measure how information workers use their time. A friend of mine (Carlos Caballero) has developed a worksheet that helps you (and your firm) identify how much time you spend on information-work that can be directly related to the cost of not performing tasks. 

"There is a problem experienced by every overworked executive, manager and staff alike: the cost of not doing certain tasks just because the overhead required renders it anti-economic, or obsolete by the time it is completed. That problem is more and more common as a result of shrinking IT resources, the elevated cost of customized applications, and the long backlog faced by IT. Information workers face the need to do what they can with what they have, and that tends to sacrifice the more resource-intensive tasks, regardless of how critical they are for corporate missions." -- Carlos Caballero

The objective [it seems] in creating a more operationally efficient information framework is to adopt tools and processes that lower the overhead of performing tasks critical to the business. That overhead must be just a skinch less than anti-economic. Some tasks are extremely anti-economic while others are probably borderline cases (i.e., low-hanging fruit that can be picked by adopting a few simple changes).

By encouraging your staff to CC a single important email message per week to an information repository you will begin to build a useful knowledge base of information that would otherwise vanish from corporate awareness. Following this basic (and frictionless) policy a team of 25 people will generate 1,250 information objects that are preserved and searchable and will raise your corporate knowledge continuity.

If I had more time, this item would be very short. ;-)

When I read this article by Charlie Cook, it resonated with me especially because I always feel compelled to provide long-winded explanations and clarifications that are unnecessary in most conversations. To be brief (ha ha) I attempt to accomplish too much in one conversation. Perhaps I subconciously feel the need to describe everything in explicit terms because I work mostly with computers, not people. Or perhaps it's a trait I've adopted from raising four kids. Either way, people (like you) want to know what we do, and they only have 15 seconds to get it.

"Talking about what you do in a new way takes a little getting used to. The first couple of times you stop yourself from saying, "I'm an executive coach or consultant" and replace it with a marketing message that describes how you actually help clients, it will feel awkward." -- Charlie Cook

This seems like great great advice - here's my 7 second version of what we do:

"We create information solutions that provide an increased capacity to act more intelligently while reducing time-to-awareness."

If that statement resonates, I also have a 15 second follow-on:

"We provide solution frameworks for content-oriented problems. The frameworks allow you to build applications faster and with greater ease. By leveraging open-standards and component-based  services, we empower you by increasing your information agility and enabling you to react quickly to constantly shifting IT requirements."

Market Syndication Services (MSS) is a tool that allows non-technical people to create, manage, and host public or secure RSS feeds. That's sounds pretty simple, and there's lots of ways to accomplish this. But where we differentiate our services is what's so compelling.

From Thin Air

Most RSS feeds are based on Web sites and reflect specific pages that change from time-to-time. MSS makes it possible to fabricate RSS feeds on any topic from the public Internet by using a search query. If you can operate Google, you can create dozens or even hundreds of RSS feeds from the rich resources of the Web.

Splice in Specific RSS Items

MSS also provides the ability to add specific RSS items that point to specific pages. For example, Imagine you sell replacement tires for the Mars Rover. MSS will make it easy for you to aggregate the most recent stories about the Mars Rover into a feed and include a specific item that points to your Rover Tire Replacement page.

Exclude Your Competitors

MSS also allows you to exclude content items that might emerge from your competitors Web sites.

Track the Clicks

Even though the aggregated links are on sites that we don't control, MSS provides the machinery to track how each RSS feed is used.

NetHawk Interactive

If you're interested in learning more about Market Syndication Services, give Robert Mendez a shout - he's an expert on the use of syndicated services to meet marketing and km objectives.