W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xg-webid@w3.org > February 2011

Re: Question: User Story -- Bootstrapping Facebook

From: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 18:32:48 +0100
Message-ID: <AANLkTimSh69oMP7=vDskpbYtXADpjzvhK8DCGXHw-+gc@mail.gmail.com>
To: jeff@sayremedia.com
Cc: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>, "Stéphane Corlosquet" <scorlosquet@gmail.com>, nathan@webr3.org, WebID XG <public-xg-webid@w3.org>
On 10 February 2011 18:01,  <jeff@sayremedia.com> wrote:
> Another thought:
>
> As the social networking space is just one of many special use cases for
> WebID, our conversations should focus on WebID as an authenticating
> protocol, whether that is for single-sign on, for identifying and
> verifying the owner of a given resource, or for establishing a Web of
> Trust for a given user. How this is accomplished with WebID is what
> matters. How or even if a given existing social network implements WebID
> is a different issue.

Jeff / Henry thanks for the feedback.

Not attempting to advise FB in any way, simply looking at two open eco
systems (I do believe FB to be an open platform) and trying to
establish the overlap.  I wish to see how much I can get working
TODAY.  What we can all do tomorrow is another story.

I'm very happy with this productive input to my question, thanks all.

This is probably something I'll look into in much more detail and I'm
happy to share my findings.

I'll start subsequent facebook specific threads in the foaf protocol
list, probably with some working demos to illustrate the point.  We
can pull that work back in, if it's deemed appropriate.

>
> Jeff
>
> http://jeffsayre.com/
>
>> In the social networking space, it is important to remember that a webpage
>> is dynamically assembled from disparate data resources. The content
>> displayed is an amalgam of contributions from different people. Thus it is
>> rarely the case that the contents of an entire page will be owned and
>> controlled by a single person (entity).
>>
>> It is also important to remember that social networking is about user
>> streams--the assemblage of content contributions that coalesce to create a
>> conversation, to capture interaction between users. That is what makes it
>> a social experience.
>>
>>> On 10 Feb 2011, at 15:11, Stéphane Corlosquet wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The fact that on the Web, you do not know who authored each bit of a
>>>> page.
>>
>> With regards to not knowing “who authored each bit of a page”, that can
>> easily be addressed. Each piece of datum can be marked up with a WebID to
>> indicate the owner of a particular content contribution. So, even on a
>> given user’s profile page, any data that was not created by and is not
>> owned or controlled by the profile owner, can clearly be indicated. Of
>> course, implementing that facility would be up to the overall platform
>> owners.
>>
>>> On February 10, 2011 9:39, Henry Story wrote:
>>>>
>>>> (This thread is a bit skizzo. Here we are in the part of this thread
>>>> giving advice to FB)
>>
>> With regards to discussions about FB, I believe that we should not make
>> any assumptions about what they will or will not do when it comes to
>> WebID. They created their own customized ontology with OGP instead of
>> using the already available open ontologies. Some speculate that they may
>> be trying to “win” the identity wars by turning their platform into the
>> largest, proprietary identity protocol broker on the Web. They will do
>> what is in their best business interest. If WebID serves a business
>> purpose, then they will implement it to the extent that they see fit. All
>> we can do is put forth a series of WebID use cases and then let the
>> various social networks, including FB,  decide how and if they will use
>> it.
>>
>> Since the Social Web is about the global conversation and usage space and
>> not just about what happens within a single, often siloed, social network,
>> I suggest that at this time we concentrate more on the fundamentals of
>> WebID, and not on how a particular space may or may not implement WebID.
>> Our WebID use cases should provide a sufficient width and breadth so that
>> current and future open and proprietary Web-based systems can properly
>> evaluate the virtues of WebID for their specific use.
>>
>> Whereas I do agree that conversations like this are informative and useful
>> in helping us craft our WebID use cases, I think that trying to solve very
>> specific and unique technical WebID implementations for a particular,
>> proprietary player, such as FB, may not be in our best interest at this
>> time.
>>
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>> http://jeffsayre.com/
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 10 February 2011 17:33:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:06:22 UTC