From the blog:
Social media is maturing as are the people embracing its most engaging tools and networks. Perhaps most notably, is the maturation of relationships and how we are expanding our horizons when it comes to connecting to one another. What started as the social graph, the network of people we knew and connected to in social networks, is now spawning new branches that resemble how we interact in real life.
This is the era of the interest graph – the expansion and contraction of social networks around common interests and events. Interest graphs represent a potential goldmine for brands seeking insight and inspiration to design more meaningful products and services as well as new marketing campaigns that better target potential stakeholders.
While many companies are learning to listen to the conversations related to their brands and competitors, many are simply documenting activity and mentions as a reporting function and in some cases, as part of conversational workflow. However, there’s more to Twitter intelligence than tracking conversations.
We’re now looking beyond the social graph as we move into focused networks that share more than just a relationship.
What struck me about this post was the sense that the graph was a non-stable construct.
Whereas most of the topic maps I have seen are not only stable, but their subjects are as well.
Which is fine for some areas of information, but not all.
A dynamic topic map seems to have different requirements than one that is a fixed editorial product, or at least it seems so to me.
Rather than versioning, for example, a dynamic topic map should have a tracking mechanism to show what information was available at any point in time.
So that say a physician relying upon a dynamic topic map for drug warning information can establish that a warning was or was not available at the time he prescribed a medication.
Oh, that’s not commonly possible even with static topic maps is it?
Hmmm, will have to give some thought to that issue.
It may just be the maps I have looked at but there is a timeless nature to them.
Much like governments, whatever is the case has always been the case. And if you remember differently, well, you are just wrong. If not subversive.