Re: Social Web User Stories

Hi All,

I've not had alot of time recently to review all the relevant info, hope
i'm not going over old ground, etc...

With respect to groups...

I had a theory that the management of unstructured groups kinda equal
social-tags. Part of the assumption is that there are structured groups
(ie: legal entities, which are named groups) and unstructured groups (which
are digitally defined via similarities in structured data, which can then
be addressed using ACL's + Whitelist/blacklist functions).

So, with unstructured groups; we've got an array of different tags that we
may assign to ACL /  WAC preferences / data-access, and people might fit
into a multitude of 'tags' or groups.

Some i can think of include;

Geographical tags - a tag that denotes a region
Mood Tag - a tag that denotes the mood of a relationship (ie: if a person
is feeling threatened by someone, they may wish to reduce access to a
different level)
Relationship activities - friends, close friends, best friends, distant,
professional, personal, educational, common interests (sporting, craft,
professional, etc.)

A group could be formed by a query that links people with the same
model/brand of a device, like a phone, tv, camera or musical instrument.

a group may be formed after an event, where the pointed-graph is targeting
the event; perhaps a users-environment (mobile) is set-up, to automagically
assigns a relationship to that event, venue, activity - via GPS Sensor,
using linked-data services...


In summary; these tags are essentially elements of structured data, which
then provide means to create narrative around unstructured events, that
in-turn form 'organic' social groups..

Thereafter; i also imagine blacklist / whitelist styled functionality, in
addition to specified ACL's.

A persons dataspace may provide public info; this public info may change
depending on the tags aligned with the recipient.  So, tap a phone with
someone in a business conference - might show professional info.  tap with
some nice lady you've met somewhere - might have other information....

In-turn, as relationships grow, people share more info with people in
unstructured ways.  This 'semantic' formatting of relationships, is in my
opinion, poorly supported by existing social network silos...

People introduced by friends - aren't really friends.  people who you've
had a disagreement with - well, blocking is a bit extreme, and
psychologically probably isn't the best method to solve a problem - having
a tag that denotes specific non-threatening access might be better - they
can still get your local law-enforcement interest reposts - yet an array of
others may provide more fuel to a fire.

Equally; in business, we have frenemies...  Yet even within that group,
people traits can be different...   Some might be highly competitive, some
might be hierarchal and others, may simply have different views on the
mechanics of economy, contribution or perhaps political views.   they may
be good friends in some fields, yet terrible friends in other fields.

I wonder whether a specific ontology would need to be defined to support
this type of function, or whether existing works exist, fit for purpose...


*Payments and Economics.*
We do live in a world that means we need money for milk, shelter, etc...

The means to use social-graph info to attribute, link, and associate
individuals to their contributions is seemingly important.  Whether it be
an artist, who is paid via social-experiences, or a PR individual who may
seek funding based on relationships, or the ability to do a commit, on a
project, and be identified as a contributor to that project...

*Data Rights*
I started my work in the area some time last year.  Data Rights, is a
different thing to Content Rights or copyright; as data has an array of
different qualities.

Whilst i do not suggest enforcement is necessarily available; the ability
to make declarations using a common set of principles, is seemingly
important...  In someways, i see this work intersecting with the WebWeWant
work of the WebFoundation, and the call for a magna carta.

Yet ontologically, i imagine some thinking probably needs to be put into
this area of data-rights.

If people set-up servers in certain legal jurisdictions - what principles,
such as privacy and copyright mean; changes...

Some data you might be happy for someone to reuse freely; others subject to
terms; other forms of data, only for specified purpose...

Healthcare information is an obvious one; yet others still are emerging,
like health-sensors, GIS sensors, weblogs of structured data, etc.

If someone is doing a project (for example), trawling the web looking for
information in a specific field; using socialWeb, they may share it with
their clients, who may in-turn use that information to understand what's
been done.  yet equally, perhaps that dataset has one set of rules before
the cheque clears, and another once it has.  perhaps the weblog might turn
into a document; and the copyright info for that document is updated /
ownership transferred...

without getting into the exacting use-cases for data-rights, it's my view
that this needs to be covered somewhere also.  given social-web is about
people - seems useful to allow people to express their intentions /
requests with regard to accessibility of data...

once it's been parsed by the browser, not much a person can do; apart from
look at the code perhaps, and review the datarights request (if it hasn't
been stripped out...)...

Cheers,

Tim.



On 8 February 2015 at 05:59, henry.story@bblfish.net <
henry.story@bblfish.net> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> The Social Web Working group has been working on User Stories to help them
> later choose
> their protocol. I believe that all these user stories can be done with LDP
> ( plus some
> new ontologies of course, and WebID authentication and Web Access Control
> ).
>
>  https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/Social_API/User_stories
>
> Perhaps some of the LDP group folks have some extra ideas to add to these
> user stories?
>
> Henry
>
> Social Web Architect
> http://bblfish.net/
>
>
>