Web 2.0 is so yesterday. Perhaps, that’s an overstatement, but Web 3.0, the semantic web, is rapidly moving beyond the academic laboratory to real-world utilization.
Dr. Eckard Ritter's insight:
Re: Relational data structures for curation. In this article, the idea is mapping the contents of a relational database to the web. I think that makes sense only in a few cases - where the database is intentionally built to be mapped. In many cases data bases have a complicated relational structure built to fulfill publishing needs and it does not make sense to publish the structure as such entirely.
Moreover, a large relational structure within the web can consist of multiple sites of various authors. This would be more interesting for curation: only the relevant parts of the sites or the relational databases, respectively, form a part of the larger relational website.
"... the opportunity to create new relevant media through curation has never been that big." Guillaume Decugis "This is a Mike Shatzkin article published in 2009 that I discovered through Robin Good. " Citation from original article:
"Every time I read a story about why newspapers are failing that doesn’t mention the role of aggregation and curation in their troubles, it reminds me that something very fundamental is being missed, even by very sophisticated observers."
Robin Good: If you are looking for ways to let your scoop.it content to reach more people and to get discovered by those who are not yet aware of you, the new Pinterest integration in Scoop.it should certainly be a welcome addition.
"N.B.: To access the new "Pin it" button on Scoop.it, click the sharing button below any scoop and you will find it there next to the G+ one."
Tim Berners-Lee (Sir Timothy Berners-Lee, the inventor of the WWW) outlines the direct connection of the Semantic Web with relational databases (1998!)
Within that image, considering content curation, a curated set of websites would form a substructure of a relational database. (Sounds complicated? It is day-to-day life: looking at any webpage, what you see is most probably such a substructure, it is simply the webpage as a part of the website)
In particular: it is relational.
In that sense: "curational" has a technical base: "relational".
This also holds in a non-technical context, when humans are curating content: "curational" is probably more specific then "semantic"
Provided that we understand "semantic" in a not too narrow sense, we can probably say: "If a topic is 'well' curated, it is likely to be semantic" (in maths we would say: "semanticity is necessary but not sufficient for curationality")
"We’ve found four main objectives for using a content strategy to create value for your company:
1) Make yourself known as an expert in your sector. (...)
2) (...) Sharing your content regularly (...)
Once you have combined the internal (level of uniqueness) and external (what people are looking for) dimensions for your content efforts, you will find that most of your ideas fall into four categories:
1) Focus topics: These are topics on which the market is looking for information, but competitors are not offering satisfactory solutions.
2) Competitive topics...
3) Niche topics: These are topics that may interest fewer people, but that your company has a unique perspective on. (...)
"A content curator assembles a quality collection of third-party and original content that is of keen interest to a particular audience, selects the best content for presentation, adds commentary valuable to the audience and publishes to the audience’s preferred channels. Content curation tools use technology to facilitate these steps."
"Marketers use content curation to establish a reputation as a trusted resource in a particular area, to build an audience (that eventually buys) above the funnel, and to foster interaction with a community of people who share specific interests."