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

On 22 May 2013 18:12, Goix Laurent Walter <
laurentwalter.goix@telecomitalia.it> wrote:

>  Hi all,****
>
> ** **
>
> I’m jumping late in the thread trying to better understand the goal of the
> proposal. “best practices” seem valid to me when dealing with a limited set
> of reference specs in order to clarify some “most common usages” of them in
> specific contexts. As some already pointed out we are plenty of more or
> less updated lists of existing initiatives/standards doing similar things,
> although each focusing on a slightly different aspect.****
>
> ** **
>
> Perhaps in order to make the fsw cg more efficient we could ****
>
> **1)      **start identifying some “areas of interest” within the whole
> fsw topic. E.g. privacy (& distribution), search, mobile, scalability etc.
> ****
>
> **2)      **open anyone/any project to contribute to the areas of his
> interest and describe how it addressed it and what should be improved****
>
> 3)      by merging and discussing commonly on each topic we’d likely
> identify concrete opportunities to make current specs/standards evolve,
> which imo would be a very nice result of the group.
>
>
> I think the idea is to make a document which shows the best practices for
how different social networks can communicate.  e.g. breaking down walled
gardens.

By all means, privacy, mobile, search, scalability are great things to
tackle, but over the last couple of years at least, we've not had the level
of activity to have a productive discussions

If the group can overcome basic challenges such as allowing heterogeneous
systems to friend and message each other, I think that kind of success
story could spur on further efforts.



> Over the past years I led the “Social Network Web” work item within the
> Open Mobile Alliance forum, which substantially is a combination of the
> opensocial specs (for device-server communication) and ostatus suite (for
> federation), with the ability to also reuse phone numbers as user identity.
> The mapping of opensocial & ostatus communication flows was one of the most
> challenging part in order to achieve a decent end-to-end spec and we learnt
> through prototyping the various issues and possible improvements of the
> core specs we rely on.****
>
> To cite some examples: pubsubhubbub & salmon may be evaluated to merge,
> pubsubhubbub may support additional communication channels, etc****
>
> Having all the most relevant actors of such specs in this group could be
> useful to share experiences, issues and proposals for solutions to evolve
> such specs and eventually converge into a reduced subset of specs that gain
> consensus. I do believe that the current fragmentation of initiatives slows
> down the deployment of large federations…****
>
> ** **
>
> Is this somehow what was in mind with “best practices” or am I off-topic?
> In that case does my (additional9 proposal make sense to anyone?****
>
> ** **
>
> Cheers****
>
> walter****
>
> ** **
>
> *Da:* Melvin Carvalho [mailto:melvincarvalho@gmail.com]
> *Inviato:* mercoledì 22 maggio 2013 9.56
> *A:* Andreas Kuckartz
> *Cc:* Dileepa Jayakody; Daniel Harris; public-fedsocweb@w3.org
> *Oggetto:* Re: Wiki page Re: Proposal to develop best practice document
> to focus work of W3C FSW Community Group****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> On 22 May 2013 08:37, Andreas Kuckartz <A.Kuckartz@ping.de> wrote:****
>
> Dileepa Jayakody:****
>
> > +1, I think we should accumulate related topics,projects and
> > protocols into one place/document, and regulation can be done in the
> > next step.
> > Discussions will be highly useful to select best projects, practises
> > IMO.****
>
> A document which is an accumulation of material would not be a Best
> Practices document. To mention specific projects would require the
> evaluation of all known projects according to objective criteria. That
> is a lot of work. I do not see enough activity in this Community Group
> to do that. The previous FSW working group produced a document
> containing a list of projects:
>
> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/socialweb/XGR-socialweb-20101206/#Decentralized
>
> I do not think that this list was very helpful. Important projects were
> missing and about half of the listed projects are now dead.
>
> My suggestion is to concentrate on compiling Best Practices, not on Best
> Products.****
>
>
> +1
>  ****
>
>
> Cheers,
> Andreas****
>
>  ** **
>     Questo messaggio e i suoi allegati sono indirizzati esclusivamente
> alle persone indicate. La diffusione, copia o qualsiasi altra azione
> derivante dalla conoscenza di queste informazioni sono rigorosamente
> vietate. Qualora abbiate ricevuto questo documento per errore siete
> cortesemente pregati di darne immediata comunicazione al mittente e di
> provvedere alla sua distruzione, Grazie.
>
> *This e-mail and any attachments** is **confidential and may contain
> privileged information intended for the addressee(s) only. Dissemination,
> copying, printing or use by anybody else is unauthorised. If you are not
> the intended recipient, please delete this message and any attachments and
> advise the sender by return e-mail, Thanks.*
> *[image: rispetta l'ambiente]Rispetta l'ambiente. Non stampare questa
> mail se non è necessario.*
>
>