Re: Network identity / brand

On 9 July 2012 07:51, Michiel de Jong <michiel@unhosted.org> wrote:

> On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 10:26 PM, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
> wrote:
> > Yes, URI everything and everything is Cool!
>
> sure, but would you propose it as a brand? Reading back, we've
> mentioned the following "brands" for the identity of fedsocweb as a
> network, both as candidates for the phrase "Are you on X?" and for the
> phrase "What is your X?":
>
> fedsocweb
> FedSocNet
> Web
> FSW
> FedSocWeb ID
> Node
> WebID
> NetID
> user address
> URI (not sure if this was a serious proposal or just a remark)
>
> and for the identifier string format we have discussed:
> user@host
> http(s)://host/path/to/user
> either user@host or http(s)://host/path/to/user
> =markus, =>markus, !markus, @<nickname>
> =markus.com, <markus.com>, %markus.com, *markus.com, markus*com
>
> and i would like to add an option (for discussion's sake): firstName
> lastName [city [other details]], that's to say, plain text search. We
> will need to federate search anyway, so why not just do it now? nodes
> can create an index of their own users, for each one listing
> firstName, lastName, city, language (skype uses this as a search
> criterium and i think it's brilliant), avatar, and globally user
> identifier string. This can be an atom/rss feed, in which case we can
> add a command that means 'user deleted', and maybe we want to
> differentiate explicitly between new users and profile updates.
> Putting this data together for multiple nodes, if each node has the
> data of each other node, you can rehash it to be a prefix -> record
> search for each field, and you have essentially created 5 distributed
> hash tables (DHT), one per search term.
>
> Nodes would have to pro-actively follow each other in order to be part
> of the same DHT. But of course we could set up a public hub that makes
> this easier, just like superfeedr runs a public PuSH node. And if we
> do it as linked data, then everybody can index it, and these search
> results can naturally become part of what Google calls its Knowledge
> Graph. Just like the rest of the web.
>
> I think federating user search is what will make our network "feel"
> like a network.
>

Facebook have done this right.  You just type someone's name into the
search box and it will go find them.  In certain rare cases you can type in
their email address.  All this is driven by the magic of the facebook open
graph and http uris.  This is also what we do in the read write social web
friend search.  The beauty of technology is when it is useful to you, and
you dont even know you're using it.

If I've understood correctly, the branding of the FSW here would be to say,
'were not facebook', and try to exclude them.  However a more practical,
and mature, approach would be to be open to work with anyone, imho.