W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xg-socialweb@w3.org > February 2010

Re: High-level social web guiding principles to SWxG

From: Story Henry <henry.story@bblfish.net>
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 13:51:04 +0100
Cc: cperey@perey.com, public-xg-socialweb@w3.org
Message-Id: <8A00B0E0-B447-420D-835F-9A0487149446@bblfish.net>
To: Kaliya <kaliya@mac.com>

On 16 Jan 2010, at 07:48, Kaliya wrote:

> 
> On Jan 15, 2010, at 2:39 AM, Christine Perey wrote:
> 
>> On principle #5, compare these two statements A and B, the second one using (to the best of my ability) the terms offered in this table http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/socialweb/wiki/SocialWebFrameworks#The_Terminology
> 
> I am just looking at this now.
> 
> I am a bit frustrated reading it. I am curious if you looked at the work of the identity community - where it defined clearly many of these terms.
> 
> You are using the same words to mean different things then us.  We as a community wrote a very clear Lexicon to talk amongst ourselves about the issues in 2004 as part of all the different identity efforts - OPenIDv1, LID, xri/i-names, sxip (these all became YADIs then OpenIDv2 btw)  the SAML guys, Shiboleth (The InCommon/U.S. Higher eductation federation) Information Cards / Active Client folks.
> 
> So you can find the Lexicon here..
> http://wiki.idcommons.net/lexicon
> It also links to several other dictionaries/lexicons we drew on.  There is an effort going on within our community now to sync these terms/definitions into the legal world.

Parts of this vocabulary don't feel like they could do with some formalization...

> 
> I am strongly in favor of working to sync vocabulary with this body of work that is over 5 years old and is already in us across the community of technical experts working in this space. Your vocabulary that is different meaning there are words that mean different things or the same things labeled differently.
> 
> This will be very confusing to the market/community/internet etc.
> 
> So what you call a profile property - in our vocabulary is an "identity attribute"
> http://wiki.idcommons.net/Identity_Attribute

It says:

ATTRIBUTE
Definition: A property of a Digital Subject that may have zero or more values. [adapted from Wikipedia, DaveK, JoaquinM]

Ok so Attribute is defined in terms of property. 

This kind of thing is defined very precisely at the semantic web level. See for example with grounding in formal logic. 

	http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/

So it seems to me that the Identity commons could gain by tying their work into the semantic web here, and the Semantic Web community could gain by working with a community that has found over time some practical consensus on which words to use.

> 
> I can't emphasize enough how much we as a community have worked on these issues/problems/use cases and standards for the past 5+ years.  I really hope that we can find a way to better cross pollinate.  There is no need to re-invent/re-think...

My feeling is that there is still a huge amount to discover though. The Social Web is only at its beginnings.

> 
> I am actually not sure if ANY W3C folks interested in the social web came to IIW in November. 

I really tried. But got stopped at the US border and had a really interesting time discovering how 3.2% of americans spend their life: namely in jail. In my case, being a foreigner travelling to the US - British to be precise - I had to sign papers before entering that I accept that I cannot defend myself. So that when the court case finally was resolved in 30 seconds I had to go back nevertheless.

More here:

  http://blogs.sun.com/bblfish/entry/7_days_in_sf_jail


>  Our next one is in May - please please please let us all get a long and that venue is a GREAT place to do it cause anyone who comes can present.
> http://www.interentidentityworkshop.com.

I will do my best to try to come. 

> 
> I fell like i should spend a whole 1/2 a day on the phone in video skype with the primary authors of this document and go through the terminology as well as the use cases & connecting you to people in our community.
> 
> I am around this week and happy to talk with folks about this in skype etc.
> 
> For those of you who missed it the principles you put forward are good & they resonate with the Purpose of identity commons put forward in 2001....
> 
> http://wiki.idcommons.net/Purpose_And_Principles
> 
> The purpose of Identity Commons is to support, facilitate, and promote the creation of an open identity layer for the Internet, one that maximizes control, convenience, and privacy for the individual while encouraging the development of healthy, interoperable communities.

That is very nice. I subscribe to that.

> 
> keep in mind that folks IN our community were the first users of the word "social web"....
> http://journal.planetwork.net/article.php?lab=reed0704

That URL does not return anything, sadly.

There is an older history of the term Social Web though, mentioned by Wikipedia:

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_web

[[
	• In 1998 the term "Social Web" was introduced in an article by Peter Hoschka in a related context to describe the shift from using computers and the web as simple cooperation tools to using the computer as a social medium.[5][6]
	• In 1955 the term "Social Web" was introduced by August C. Krey in the essay collection History and the Social Web published by the University of Minnesota press.[7]

[5] http://www.fit.fhg.de/~hoschka/Social%20Web.htm
[6] http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=290576
[7] http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/1153026?tab=details#tabs
]]

It is also difficult to see that the foaf ontology developed in 2000 was not working on the social web, or that Tim Berners Lee's 1999 presentation at the W3C was not about the social web either http://www.w3.org/Talks/WWW94Tim/


> 
> Let me know how I can help make the connections.
> -Kaliya
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> 
>> A (original). You can communicate with connections no matter which Social Network or Social Application you share.
>> 
>> B (revised). The Social Web user may initiate and/or receive communication across Social Connections which exist/are established between multiple profiles which share a common Social Network or Social Application.
>> 
>> How this is different from what we have currently with Social Network silos?
>> 
>> -- 
>> Christine
>> 
>> Spime Wrangler
>> 
>> cperey@perey.com
>> mobile +41 79 436 68 69
>> VoIP (from US) +1 (617) 848-8159
>> Skype (from anywhere) Christine_Perey
>> 
>> 
>> Döhler, Anita, VF-Group wrote:
>>> Hi All,
>>> We think a definition of high level principles which constitute the Social Web would be useful in the context of defining the framework for the Social Web and its concepts. Attached/below a proposal of so far 5 principles for dicsussion on the mailing list and/or at the next SWxG telcon.
>>> High level principles
>>> 1.	What you see depends on who you are.
>>> 2.	Once defined, you can use your connections and relationships, across different Social Networks or Social Applications.
>>> 3.	You can expose your content (User Generated Content) to different Social Networks or Social Applications, without the need to store the content in these networks/applications. 4.	You can define the access control on a per item basis, either per contact, or per group.
>>> 5.	You can communicate with connections no matter which Social Network or Social Application you share.
>>> Looking forward to hearing your comments w/r the need of agreeing on high level principles & their concrete content/wording,
>>> Regards
>>> Dan (A) & Anita
>> 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 3 February 2010 12:51:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 3 February 2010 12:51:42 GMT