Re: Question: User Story -- Bootstrapping Facebook

2011/2/10 <jeff@sayremedia.com>

> 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
>

Very much so, e-Commerce could be another huge field with numerous
applications. I think demoing in this field could get quite a few big
players with $$$ on board.

Regards,

Laszlo


> 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
>
> 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/
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>