Re: Proposal to develop best practice document to focus work of W3C FSW Community Group

On 8 May 2013 13:37, Michiel B. de Jong <anything@michielbdejong.com> wrote:

> i think instead of creating a best practice document, we can just make
> sure the wiki is complete and up-to-date:
>
>     http://www.w3.org/2005/**Incubator/federatedsocialweb/**wiki/Main_Page<http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/federatedsocialweb/wiki/Main_Page>
>

are you volunteering to keep this wiki up to date? :)


>
> how do you propose to measure the relative importance of competing
> protocols? shouldn't we leave that to the market to decide, instead of
> trying to apply a top-down decision on that? sure, i agree that the wiki
> should reflect how active each project/protocol is, we can try to give the
> reader a sense of
>
> - how many developer are currently working on/with a certain protocol?
> - how many software projects/independent code bases "speak" the protocol?
> - does it pass SWAT0?
> - how  many servers / active user accounts support it?
>
> i would say let's just keep giving all protocols and projects in the
> ecosystem a fair chance to present themselves here, and exchange
> experiences. maybe a winner will emerge, maybe not. but choosing one
> through a mailinglist-vote sounds like a bad idea.
>

sure, voting has a weakness from vote stuffing

equally market based metrics are helpful but should not be a straight
jacket, facebook has the most users but not every aspect of facebook is
appropriate for a federated social web (though some certainly are)

as Andreas suggested, the approach similar to tim's 5 star approach to
linked data makes sense ... w3c groups are designed to promote
interoperability through standardization ... it's certainly possible to
create such a metric along similar lines


>
>
> my 2ct,
> Michiel de Jong.
>
>