Re: Position papers / workshop Re: FSW CG now has 100 members

If you don't have a rock solid application to view and manage data,
shouldn't you know where that data is when you start building applications
to manage it?

wonder who can get us a conversation with Facebook. I'm sure they'll be
open to the idear and want to be there..




On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 8:42 AM, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>wrote:

>
>
>
> On 3 July 2013 14:23, Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org> wrote:
>
>>  On 07/01/2013 09:57 PM, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 1 July 2013 21:24, Andreas Kuckartz <A.Kuckartz@ping.de> wrote:
>>
>>> Michiel B. de Jong:
>>> > On 2013-07-01 08:51, Andreas Kuckartz wrote:
>>> >> I noticed that the Program Committee for that workshop mostly
>>> >> consists of people who do not seem to be active in the Federated
>>> >> Social Web community.
>>> >
>>> > i do not agree there Andreas, although maybe there are multiple
>>> > "bubbles" of active people, and we are probably in a more European
>>> > bubble.
>>>
>>>  I am not that much concerned about a different geographical "bubble".
>>> But I think that the workshop "bubble" has somewhat different interests
>>> and priorities. That definitely is legitimate.
>>>
>>> But if that workshop decides about future activities to be implemented
>>> by the W3C then those decisions are unlikely to adequately reflect the
>>> views of the members of the Federated Social Web Community Group. And
>>> that would not help to strengthen the Open Social Web.
>>>
>>
>>  Ah, I see.  I had presumed that Harry's workshop was in collaboration
>> with this group.  It seems to be a separate thing in itself.  Thanks for
>> pointing that out.
>>
>>
>> Just to be clear, it's an official W3C workshop. Insofar as this CG is
>> part of the W3C, it's a workshop that part of the CG. The co-chair of this
>> CG is on the PC and attending. Whether or not the workshop is
>> representative of this group depends on if people submit position papers
>> and attend.
>>
>> However, the workshop is in the USA.
>>
>
>
>
>> We did host a workshop two years ago on this topic in Berlin.
>>
>
> Harry, what exactly is "this topic".  My understanding was that the
> workshop in Berlin was based on the "Federated Social Web" and that this
> one is on "Social Standards: The future of Business"
>
>
>> Unfortunately, nothing much came of it in terms of focussed work,
>> although lots of great connections were made. Thus, we're trying again in
>> the USA, since many folks from the USA were not able to attend the Berlin
>> workshop in 2011.
>>
>> To be honest, I find the arguments over whether Facebook *really* employs
>> Linked Data to be a red herring, as regardless of how one interprets "5
>> stars", Linked Data is not a magic bullet that encompasses all of "social"
>> (if it was a magic bullet, it's a rather slow-moving magic bullet, although
>> perhaps a bit quicker than the magic bullet of ontologies) and 2) we still
>> lack usable, standards-compliant software that can provide the social
>> functionality that Facebook provides, i.e. profile, friending
>> (relationships), access control, and so on that can be used within a modern
>> HTML5 framework in a cross-platform fashion. Emphasis on "usable" and
>> "modern" :)
>>
>
> I agree that the degree to which facebook employs linked data is a red
> herring *to this conversation*.  My point, was that if you or the W3C
> intend to form a Working Group for *standardization* of the social web in
> the context of Business (or enterprise or W3C membership), having facebook
> at the table is essential.  Please bear in mind that you did reach out and
> ask who should be on the program committee.
>
> The value of Linked Data in a *federated* context (although compelling) is
> a different conversation.
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Andreas
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>