Re: Re-org of chart

On 26 April 2012 07:00, Lloyd Fassett <lloyd@azteria.com> wrote:

> Blaine,
>
> I think the world of data may be a subset of a bigger picture.  For
> example, the content I share on Facebook is not for or about being
> structured, such as a joke or a picture of my kids.  I think the social
> interaction layer could be separated from the data layer and come first.  I
> don't have use cases in mind for that though either.
>
> We are coming from different backgrounds I'd think.  I'm coming from the
> staffing world and the use case is fairly well defined, but a subset of
> what the social web is about.  I'm concerned with matching and ranking the
> supply and demand of skills sets.  That has a built in focus that very well
> may not apply to more broad use cases like sharing pictures.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by data coming after social interactions.  I
> see a lot of well defined areas that have data first to enable social
> interactions, such as sites that use ISBN numbers for books like Amazon or
> GoodReads.  Amazon seems like all data first to me, followed by opinion on
> individual products.
>

I think for me the question in this (w3c social web) context is one of
standardisation – what needs to be standardised now, and what can wait?
Amazon's data model is pretty flexible. Viewed historically, it's not
something that would have been easy (or desirable) to have standardised
up-front.

The current movement around annotations is a good example – there are a
bunch of companies and individuals writing software that allows users to
add marginalia to ebooks (and the web, in general). Each has their own
approach, but fundamentally they're all doing roughly the same thing.
Eventually there will be enough consensus (based on running code) to
standardise on something, but until that time, there's really no point.
Does that help clarify?

b.