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

Re: High-level social web guiding principles to SWxG

From: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 13:31:29 +0000
Message-ID: <b3be92a01001180531t11745bfq5a3cd17c779d550e@mail.gmail.com>
To: Kaliya <kaliya@mac.com>
Cc: cperey@perey.com, public-xg-socialweb@w3.org
On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 7:48 AM, Kaliya <kaliya@mac.com> 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

I agree with Kaliya that if at all possible it would good to
co-ordinate with ID commons lexicon - I can take a stab at this if we
want, and should discuss this on the call. However, I think the use of
Renato and Christine's document actually comes in at the levels of
policy-driven access, analytics, and whatnot, and so could be quite
complimentary to the ID commons work.

> 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...

Well, e-mails like this help!

> 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 am planning to attend the one next year, and Thomas Roessler, W3C's
Tech and Society Domain Lead, did attend
IIW for some period of time, and we sent Rigo to the OpenID summit. I
guess folk are doing a bad job announcing themselves...

> 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.

That would be amazing if folks could sort this out, and I'm very happy
to help.  Overall, one of DPs principles that I think we should try to
follow is to re-invent as little as possible. However, we do need in
our final report to the W3C use vocabulary consistently, and beginning
the report  defining terms and use-cases is needed. I would assume we
will reference both ID Commons Lexicon and the Best Practices 2.0
docs. One question we should look at in our next telecon is how to

1) Co-ordinate this document with existing work in the field
2) Integrate it into the final report

> 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.

We are hoping to do an e-mail re trying to figure out ID Commons/W3C
joint work possibilities for the future, as you mentioned earlier.

> -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 Monday, 18 January 2010 13:32:03 UTC

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