- From: Antonio Tapiador del Dujo <atapiador@dit.upm.es>
- Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 12:36:31 +0200
- To: public-fedsocweb@w3.org
Hi Michiel, I agree that is better to start with something useful, specially if you are the one who is actually working on it :-) But, at least for the record, a couple elements I am missing: * contact or friend list * content sets, such as pictures, blog posts, etc. El 27/07/12 10:33, Michiel de Jong escribió: > Hi Kingsley, > > i prefer to start with modeling the stuff we need first, so for users > just avatar, a free-text full name, maybe city and gender, and then a > list of tools (read, subscribe, comment, message). That way we can > chart a big part of the federated social web already i think, except > for things like mailing lists and chat channels. So that's what i > wanted to bring up in this thread. Maybe i didn't phrase my question > clearly enough, sorry. > > On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 5:52 PM, Kingsley Idehen<kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote: >> You need to model everything. > Everything? although i doubt you really mean what you say there, i'm > afraid that might be an uncomputable problem ;) > > When you write an application you should take care not to try to write > an operation system instead. An application has a specific function, > which is limited and is not 'it should do everything' (that is what > operating systems and programming languages are for). > > if next year it becomes a big thing on the web to be friends with an > elephant, then we might want to add a 'species' field to the > useraddress.net search results, but for now that seems like overkill. > > as i thought a bit more about the concept of 'topics', i felt that > maybe they are specific types of 'groups', because a chat session is > defined ultimately by the people participating in it, and only > secondarily by the topic that these people agreed on. it is also > possible to have a group or group chat without a preset topic. So i > think i might use 'group' instead of 'topic'. > > Anyway, it's just a proof-of-concept, so we can always change it later > if we get new insights.
Received on Friday, 27 July 2012 10:36:57 UTC