ICE 1.1 released, and ICE/RSS discussions

["Laird Popkin" <laird.popkin@sothebys.com>]

First, I'd like to let folks know that the ICE 1.1 spec is out at 
http://www.icestandard.org.

Here's the press release: http://www.icestandard.org/releases.asp.
The 
first few paragraphs are:

------

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT PETE JANHUNEN
13 JUNE 2000 703/519-8190, pjanhunen@gca.org

ICE Version 1.1 Hits the Street

Breakthrough enhancements to standard for digital asset exchange 
released at XML Europe 2000 

PARIS (XML Europe, 13 June 2000) -- The Information and Content 
Exchange (ICE) Authoring Group has released ICE Version 1.1, adding 
tremendous capabilities to this already powerful digital asset
exchange 
standard. Version 1.1 is now available on the ICE web site, 
www.icestandard.org.

The ICE standard, an initiative hosted by IDEAlliance, reduces the
cost 
of doing business online and increases the value of B2B
relationships. 
ICE facilitates the controlled exchange and management of electronic 
assets between networked partners and affiliates. Applications based
on 
ICE allow companies to easily construct syndicated publishing
networks, 
Web superstores, and online reseller channels by establishing Web
site-
to-Web site information networks.

"Thousands of companies are using ICE-based products from vendors
such 
as Arcadia, Intershop, Kinecta, Macromedia, Quark, Vignette and 
Xenosys," commented ICE Working Group chair Laird Popkin of
Sotheby's. 
"The work we've done to improve the standard will make it easier to 
automate even more tasks and will help knit the digital economy more 
tightly together."

------

Here's the spec: http://www.icestandard.org/spec/SPEC-ICE1.01-
20000511.html.

Now, to reply to Dave Winer's message:

--- In syndication@egroups.com, "Dave Winer" <dave@u...> wrote:
> Boy there would be some intense politics at that particular
meeting. ;->

I'm not clear why you think so. The ICE Authoring Group has been 
notably free of politics, which is (IMO) pretty darned cool for a
group 
containing some pretty direct competitors (at various times): News
Corp 
and Tribune, Microsoft and Sun, Vignette and Shiftkey, Reuters and 
WAVO, ... you get the idea. And (speaking informally) the AG members 
agree with the sentiment on this list (and your previous emails) that 
it's worth exploring a common standard in this space.

> I'm still pondering how to move RSS forward. I definitely want
ICE-like
> stuff in RSS2, publish and subscribe is at the top of my list, but
I am
> going to fight tooth and nail for simplicity. I love optional
elements. I
> don't want to go down the namespaces and schema road, or try to
make it a
> dialect of RDF. I understand other people want to do this, and
therefore I
> guess we're going to get a fork. I have my own opinion about where
the other
> fork will lead, but I'll keep those to myself for the moment at
least.

Again, I'm not sure what you're referring to here. ICE doesn't use
XML 
Namespaces or XML Schema, and isn't a dialect of RDF. Or are you 
referring to competing design philosophies within the people involved 
in RSS? The ICE AG decided two years ago not to take the RDF path,
for 
example, so it sounds like we've got similar design philosophies.

Given that ICE has been in production for quite a while, and does
many 
of the things that people have mentioned wanting to see in RSS, it's 
certainly worth getting together to discuss whether we can work 
together. I don't know what the answer is, but I think that it's 
productive for the industry to at least have the conversation.

> I see the biggest value in the large base of RSS 0.91 content, my
goal is to
> add simple features to enable new applications, giving each a lot of
> thought, and foremost to retain the simplicity of 0.91. I guess I
can't say
> that enough. ;->
>
> Dave

There's certainly a lot of value in the installed bases of both 
standards. There are thousands of companies running ICE, and anything 
that would affect them is not to be taken lightly, but at the same
time 
the potential migration costs for all involved would be that much 
higher a year from now.  I'd hope, however, that potential migration 
costs don't overshadow the potential value of avoiding significant 
duplicated efforts in the long run. And, if we're clever, we may be 
able to minimize such impact.

In moving to take the next step (setting up the conversation about
the 
relationship between ICE and RSS), I'm not sure who the ICE AG should 
have the conversation with. The only formally defined author is Dave 
Winer (there's no standards body for RSS, and it's copyrighted solely 
by Userland) I guess I'd have to ask this list who appropriate 
representatives of the RSS user/implementor community would be.

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Laird A Popkin" <laird@i...>
> To: "Dave Winer" <dave@u...>
> Cc: <xml-dev@x...>; "Xml-Rpc@E..." <xml-rpc@egroups.com>;
> <xml-dist-app@w...>; <fork@x...>
> Sent: Friday, June 09, 2000 8:59 AM
> Subject: Re: RSS 0.91 restated
> 
> 
> > Once 0.91 is "pushed out the door" I'd suggest that we have a good
> > opportunity to explore merging RSS and ICE. I'd suggest setting
up a
> > meeting between some of the ICE AG members and some of the folks
involved
> > in RSS to see how things could play together to our mutual
benefit.