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

Re: High-level social web guiding principles to SWxG

From: Christine Perey <cperey@perey.com>
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 09:13:02 +0100
Message-ID: <4B52C68E.5040906@perey.com>
To: Kaliya <kaliya@mac.com>
CC: public-xg-socialweb@w3.org
Hi Kaliya,

I would be happy to discuss the issues you have raised one-on-one.
I'll contact you to arrange a time.

-- 
Christine


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. 
> 
> 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
> 
> 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...
> 
> I am actually not sure if ANY W3C folks interested in the social web 
> came to IIW in November.  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 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.
> 
> 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
> 
> 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 <mailto: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 Sunday, 17 January 2010 08:13:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:22:08 UTC