Just read Dan Farber‘s post on structured blogging that in turn refers to some other posts on the subject.He and some of the other posts he references are addressing the concern that the overhead of adding the structure isn’t worth it for the blogger. His conclusion, BTW, is that giving up (even before it’s really even started) would be defeatist – I agree completely.But that specific discussion is not really the point of my post here. Rather, it is the structure part I am thinking about…I live in a world where information almost always has some structure applied to it – content management. Yeah, we manage unstructured content, however, we layer on structure in the management process. Absolutely no doubt that without that structure there would be very little management. To add to the standard capabilities of the web, render, download, rich text searching, … you need more structured information – no way around it (today’s web content has some structure, enough to support these operations). Blogging itself is an example of adding more structure to serve a particular need – when I finish this post you’ll be able to see the values of specialized fields both in the actual web rendering and even more so if you look at the rss. Clearly, I’m all for more structure to support more capabilities – as I said, services over content is the world I live in.Anyway, in iECM we are working on a formal model for interoperability of content management, we are addressing the information sharing problem. And we’ve had some very interesting conversations about the web being an information sharing infrastructure. How does the iECM information sharing infrastructure distinguish itself from the information sharing infrastructure of the web? It’s all about adding the right structure, and the right set of services to support the set of content management capabilities we need.