Re: Facebok a leader of _federated_ social networking?

On 2 July 2013 13:29, Jonas Smedegaard <dr@jones.dk> wrote:

> Quoting Melvin Carvalho (2013-07-01 19:35:10)
> > On 1 July 2013 18:25, Jonas Smedegaard <dr@jones.dk> wrote:
> >> Quoting Melvin Carvalho (2013-07-01 17:52:11)
> >>> Regarding standarization, I think it's difficult to argue that
> >>> facebook is not the leader in terms of both adoption and
> >>> engineering. Without facebook at the table, I think standarization
> >>> would be a slightly different prospect.
> >>
> >> Sorry if I am missing something obvious, but how do you see Facebook
> >> as being leader in the context of *federated* social networking?
> >>
> >
> > Facebook is the network everybody loves to hate.
>
> For the record I do not hate Facebook.
>
>
> > However, within the context of this conversation please note Harry's
> > link on 'social standards' (note: federated, although the theme of
> > this list, is not a pre requisite there).  I dont speak for facebook,
> > but my comment was that it would be difficult to argue facebook is not
> > the leader in this space, both in terms of adoption and in terms of
> > engineering.
>
> If by "this space" you mean the broader "social networking" (i.e. not
> federated), then I agree Facebook is leader there - and apologize for
> the misundertanding.
>
> ...I would call it "that space", however ;-)
>
>
> > 1. Their profiles are 5 star linked data.
>
> Looking at http://www.w3.org/TR/ld-glossary/#x5-star-linked-open-data I
> am not sure I agree with that...
>
> Which Open License (1st star) is explicitly accompanied by Facebook
> profile data?
>
> What useful data sources (5th star) do RDF identifiers link to?
>
>
> > What would be even better is if you could link from facebook, networks
> > OUTSIDE of facebook, but we need to give them a reason to do that
> > first!
>
> While it might be true that Facebook see no good reason to link outside
> of their own network, I see 5th star as being about actively doing
> exactly that.
>

You are welcome to your opinion as linked (open) data is an informal note,
and up to interpretation.  The keys in facebook open graph are self
describing data, for example

http://graphite.ecs.soton.ac.uk/browser/?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fgraph.facebook.com%2F512908782%23#http://graph.facebook.com/512908782#

http://graph.facebook.com/schema/user#albums
→ rdf:type → owl:ObjectProperty
→ rdfs:label → "albums"
→ rdfs:comment → "The photo albums this user has created."
→ rdfs:domain → user
→ rdfs:subPropertyOf → http://graph.facebook.com/schema/~/albums


>
>
>
>
> > 2. The open graph protocol was developed at facebook, and is pointed
> > out on harry's link as gaining traction.  Open Graph is not related to
> > facebook, anyone can use it.  It's federated out to 100s of millions
> > of sites already, and this is far greater federation than this group
> > has dreamt off.
>
> Ahh, now I get it: Yes, you are right Facebook are leader of federated
> social networking, when that includes federating around a central core.
>
> Those 100s of millions of sites you mention federating with Facebook can
> technically only do so as long as they register with Facebook and treat
> them as central point.
>

I wasnt aware that you needed to register with facebook to use OGP.  If
it's the case, I'd like to understand more about that.


>
> My flaw was in interpreting federation as treating all networks as equal
> (as in the book "Animal Farm", Facebook is "more equal than others").
>
> [additional examples of Facebook "more equal than others" snipped]
>
>
> > [...] my point about standarization is that it would be good to have
> > facebook at the table.  It would be foolish not to look at a success
> > story and try and find the good parts.
>
> Fair enough.  Boils down to interpretation of "success" or "good parts",
> I guess.  I thought the aim of this mailinglist was a different one.
>

I suppose, it depends on whether you see the glass as half full or half
empty.  I can link into facebook in a standards compliant way.  I cant
(yet) link out.  So maybe we are half way there.  It's still 50% better
than some of the silos we have today, which allow neither.


>
>
>  - Jonas
>
> --
>  * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
>  * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/
>
>  [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private
>

Received on Tuesday, 2 July 2013 12:45:04 UTC