Re: Federation protocols

On 1 June 2013 21:16, Nick Jennings <nick@silverbucket.net> wrote:

>
> On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 3:39 PM, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
>>
>> On 31 May 2013 11:50, Michał 'rysiek' Woźniak <rysiek@fwioo.pl> wrote:
>>
>>> Dnia piątek, 31 maja 2013 o 06:59:52 Melvin Carvalho napisał(a):
>>> > On 30 May 2013 20:26, Michał 'rysiek' Woźniak <rysiek@fwioo.pl> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > The web was designed to be social from day 1.  There are standards for
>>> this
>>> > kind of thing, but they are highly underused, with perhaps, the
>>> exception
>>> > of facebook.
>>>
>>> Are you talking about how Facebook uses XMPP? Otherwise, I don't see the
>>> "open
>>> social interoperable standard" in Facebook (although, granted, I'm not a
>>> user
>>> there).
>>>
>>
>> There are many things about facebook that are not ideal, such as privacy
>> issues and centralization, but it is a market leader and some of the
>> technology is worth examining, imho
>>
>> There is the xmpp, but I'm more referring to how facebook uses web
>> standards to federate.  Facebook federation is found on over 10% of all
>> websites, so they must be doing something scalable.  The techniques are to
>> leverage HTTP via the open graph protocol
>>
>
> Is it true federation though? I was under the impression that true
> federation, in the SMTP sense, would mean that users don't have to have a
> facebook account in order to interoperate.
>

The answer is 'it depends'.  Some aspects such as facebook like are
centrallzed and require a facebook account.  Other aspects such as
opengraph protocol, which let you type in a url and it gets the image,
title, description etc. are independent of any social network and usable by
anyone.  Things like schema.org and goodrelations are also compatible with
this.  The deployment is significant, we are talking about high digit
millions of sites.  That's one motivation for activity streams 2.0 to align
themselves.