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

On 24 September 2012 12:53, Daniel Harris <daniel@kendra.org.uk> wrote:

> 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?
>

Yes, that's the magic of the URI.  But there's subtle differences such as
HTTP was designed to be dereference and to link to other entities etc.


>
> > 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?
>

I take you point, but the data layer is really important.  I was reading
this quote from Linus Torvalds yesterday:

"Bad programmers worry about the code. Good programmers worry about data
structures and their relationships."

This is one reason systems like git are so robust.


>
> >> 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?
>

Sure!  Tho it takes buy in from both parties to really get interop working.


>
> >> 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!
>

I think interop is a core goal of everyone that is interested in
federation.  I would personally say that Tim Berners-Lee has champtioned
this from the very first day of the Web.  Making it a reality does take a
little blood sweat and tears, tho :)

There's a couple of baseline proposals.  Evan's SWAT0 is an example.  I
think perhaps simpler is to try and get messages sent from one system to
another.  Sometimes people tend to do things in different ways tho, and
compatibility can be a challenge.


>
> >> 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.
>

Great :)


>
> > 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!
>

It just takes people to step up to the plate and come up with a plan to
make it happen.  Maybe we should have a matrix of systems that are keen to
federate with others and those that have successfully achieved interop or
maybe hacking sessions.  Or to write up the challenges on why interop is
not complete.  IMHO the biggest challenge is to achieve buy in from the
stake holders, who often have lots of work on their plate.


> > 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?
>

+1