Re: Federation protocols

Nick's recollection of the Myspace/Facebook resonates with mine

Of course it makes sense to include the features of the dominant players in
the space, as well as mapping the features of the smaller ones. It would
make sense to grab contact info off of every site; these will be the core
audience, and people most vested in the continuing of the discussion,
though we need to have criterion for removing people from the group, before
we open up fully to that.

I feel like a feature comparison document should be a spread sheet.


On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 4:06 PM, Nick Jennings <nick@silverbucket.net> wrote:

>
> On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 9:31 PM, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
> So, is grabbing a name and an avatar from a URL federation? I thought
> federation was more of a two way street. Perhaps you are correct on a very
> basic level, but I think we've been talking about much more than that.
> Following, messaging, commenting, etc.
>