W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-socialweb@w3.org > May 2012

Re: Re-org of chart

From: Blaine Cook <romeda@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 2 May 2012 15:48:56 +0100
Message-ID: <CAAz=sc=PHQBE0SnU4f+0rxY4juWbzok9PfQ4ssYNAYxJEwOzCA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
Cc: public-socialweb@w3.org
Hi all,

On Apr 30, 2012 5:16 PM, "Jeff Jaffe" <jeff@w3.org> wrote:
> We need a similar paradigm for social networking.  Blaine's description of 25 April is a step in the right direction.  But it is probably not the final word.  There are pieces of "social networking" that don't seem to show up in the graph (sharing, notification).  And the notion of "layer" so prevalent in communications might not be the right metaphor for the social block diagram.

+1 - my intent was bout at all to suggest that my work was anything
but a thought piece, intended to help us move towards an understanding
of how the various bits connect.

> Scenarios.  These are social networking activities that people perform.
> 1. Update personal information
> 2. Share information
> 3. Form a group
> 4. Use a group to collaborate on a problem
> 5. React to an event
> 6. Launch an app
> 7. Explore a social graph
> 8. Update a location
> 9. Provide a reaction

This is great.

Probably #1 and #2 are the same thing. I'm not sure what #y means? #7
is tricky, if only because a lot of the early "open" social network
technologies were based on social graph traversal, when the focus
desperately needs to be on creating social experiences.

#8 is similar to #1 & #2 - is it worth breaking these things out into
lots of different scenarios?

> Proposed basis set.  This is the minimal comprehensive description that allows the scenarios to be performed.
> 1. Identity and addressing (includes profile)
> 2. Data (text, documents, etc.)
> 3. Sharing infrastructute (events, location, status)
> 4. Linking to more information (posting, hyperlinks, search)
> 5. Group dynamics (create groups, membership lists, social graph)
> 6. Transport / messaging
> 7. "Feeds" management
> 8. Reactions

This formulation doesn't match my mental model at all – Identity and
Data are definitely towards the base of the stack, but one needs a way
to negotiate identity. I see "identity" in this world as comparable to
DNS in the OSI model. Other issues are that group dynamics can be
composed from messaging (point-to-point or multicast) (i.e., #5 is
dependent on #6), and I think "sharing infrastructure", #3 is the
meta-category of all of this, isn't it? Reactions can't happen without
some construction of feeds, but neither can #3, #4, or #5. Likewise, I
think reactions are just a kind of data.

> The test
> The test is the following.  For each scenario (currently 9), is it the case that the underlying technology that allows us to describe the scenario sits in the basis set (currently 8 technology categories).  And are these categories used roughly the same way each time.

I like this conception; I'll try to expand and refine the stack I
proposed and try to run some scenarios through it. :-)

Sorry I haven't been able to make the calls recently – two hours is
tough for me to set aside unless it's really focused time.


Received on Wednesday, 2 May 2012 14:49:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 8 December 2016 15:48:17 UTC