Re: RFC: tent.io (protocol for social networking)

On 24 Sep 2012, at 09:41, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
> On 24 September 2012 10:25, Daniel Harris <daniel@kendra.org.uk> wrote:
>> Is anyone aware of http://tent.io ? What are your thoughts?
> 
> Really like it.  This is the kind of solution that has been advocated by people like Tim Berners-Lee for some time.

Cool and excellent! I've added Tent to:

http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/federatedsocialweb/wiki/Protocols#Tent

> Main difference is that tent uses http urls to describe a user.  

Surely that could be abstracted to allow for other ways to describe a user if so required?

> They also have put a lot of work into the message and documentation.
>  
>> Tent looks really interesting in it's solution: "Tent is a protocol for social networking. Tent is open, decentralized, and built for the future."
> 
> Most of the FSW projects use the newly proposed acct: scheme to describe a user, and relies on webfinger.  HTTP is proven over 2 decades and mature, acct: is relatively untested, indeed, it's not even an IETF approved scheme yet.  Not saying it's *bad* but definitely living on the bleeding edge, with a smaller network effect.

Again, does it really matter how we describe a user? As long as applications are aware of the description method then they should be able to understand the data? Right?

>> Does it play nice with current technology?
> 
> It's only version 0.1 but shows promise for now.  Let's see if they try and interop with anything other than themselves, which is the acid test, imho.

From what I can tell, the creators are asking for others to assist. So, I guess it really comes down to, do we think it's a good idea? Do we want it to interoperate/integrate with it? Then it's up to us right?

>> Can it be integrated with the FedSocWeb solutions we've talked about on this list?
> 
> Theoretically possible.  But these things can take time.  

I'm done with things taking time! ;-) Isn't this what we need to make this ecosystem happen? The problem seems to be that there's no consistency – or not enough for critical mass at least – in what's being integrated into platforms and there seems little understanding that interoperability is as important as technological brilliance. Because it seems unlikely that there will be any resounding "winners" in the protocol race. There are too many people – with wonderful energy – out there with a slightly different take on what's needed and how to implement a solution.

It seems what we need is as much effort in interoperating protocols/applications as there this is in creating/inventing new protocols/applications. Who is championing interoperability these days? I need to speak to them!

>> Are there other people with similar approaches?
> 
> Sure, FOAF has been using a simiar approach (http as identity) for over 10 years with mixed success, and has about 100 million profiles.  In fact many FSW projects support a baseline FOAF.

Cool.

> Facebook uses a similar approach with the open graph, but have really mastered authentication and a permissioned application framework

Yes, but I'm biting my tongue in order not to sully this thread. ;-)

> We're also working on some solutions in the read write web community group ...
> 
> http://www.w3.org/community/rww/wiki/Social_Systems

I've joined! Here I go again with group overload.

> Hopefully in the long term all the solutions that stick around,

I'm really not happy with just leaving things to chance any more. How long is this "long term" going to be? How long until this ecosystem starts to really flourish? We've got to make it happen intentionally!

> will try to talk to each other ...

Why are we leaving interoperability to chance? It just feels so risky. If we want all these layers and protocols to talk to talk to each other then it should be stated as one of our main goals and fostered and championed. Yeah?

Received on Monday, 24 September 2012 10:54:20 UTC