<rdf:RDF
    xmlns:rdf='http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#'
    xmlns:s='http://snipsnap.org/rdf/snip-schema#'
    xml:base='http://www.thinkberg.com/rdf'>
    <s:Snip rdf:about='http://www.thinkberg.com/rdf#start/2009-01-18/1'
         s:name='start/2009-01-18/1'
         s:cUser='arte'
         s:oUser=''
         s:mUser='arte'>
        <s:content>1 twitter: the public chat {anchor:twitter: the public chat}&#xA;I have been following a few friends {link:twitter|http://www.twitter.com} messages via {link:Google Reader|https://www.google.com/reader} and I get the impression that it works much like a group chat system. The conversations are similar to cross-linked comments in weblogs and have a similar publicity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unlike these friends I never really started to use twitter and even deleted my account there, as well as in a few other social networking systems. I give away so much already so I don&apos;t want to make the harvesting too easy. What strikes me though is, why a service like twitter has taken away the public chat room from classic instant messaging systems. It works much like {link:IRC (Internet Relay Chat)|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRC} where you can just join into an open chat. However, it looks crude that you have to read the others chat to actually communicate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess the real advantage of twitter is the simple user interfaces on loads of different systems that heavy weight instant messaging systems failed to provide until now. </s:content>
        <s:mTime>2009-01-18 16:57:17.656</s:mTime>
        <s:cTime>2009-01-18 16:57:17.656</s:cTime>
        <s:comments
             rdf:type='http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#Bag'/>
        <s:snipLinks
             rdf:type='http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#Bag'/>
        <s:attachments
             rdf:type='http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#Bag'/>
    </s:Snip>
</rdf:RDF>
