Re: Position papers / workshop Re: FSW CG now has 100 members

On 3 July 2013 14:23, Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org> wrote:

>  On 07/01/2013 09:57 PM, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On 1 July 2013 21:24, Andreas Kuckartz <A.Kuckartz@ping.de> wrote:
>
>> Michiel B. de Jong:
>> > On 2013-07-01 08:51, Andreas Kuckartz wrote:
>> >> I noticed that the Program Committee for that workshop mostly
>> >> consists of people who do not seem to be active in the Federated
>> >> Social Web community.
>> >
>> > i do not agree there Andreas, although maybe there are multiple
>> > "bubbles" of active people, and we are probably in a more European
>> > bubble.
>>
>>  I am not that much concerned about a different geographical "bubble".
>> But I think that the workshop "bubble" has somewhat different interests
>> and priorities. That definitely is legitimate.
>>
>> But if that workshop decides about future activities to be implemented
>> by the W3C then those decisions are unlikely to adequately reflect the
>> views of the members of the Federated Social Web Community Group. And
>> that would not help to strengthen the Open Social Web.
>>
>
>  Ah, I see.  I had presumed that Harry's workshop was in collaboration
> with this group.  It seems to be a separate thing in itself.  Thanks for
> pointing that out.
>
>
> Just to be clear, it's an official W3C workshop. Insofar as this CG is
> part of the W3C, it's a workshop that part of the CG. The co-chair of this
> CG is on the PC and attending. Whether or not the workshop is
> representative of this group depends on if people submit position papers
> and attend.
>
> However, the workshop is in the USA.
>



> We did host a workshop two years ago on this topic in Berlin.
>

Harry, what exactly is "this topic".  My understanding was that the
workshop in Berlin was based on the "Federated Social Web" and that this
one is on "Social Standards: The future of Business"


> Unfortunately, nothing much came of it in terms of focussed work, although
> lots of great connections were made. Thus, we're trying again in the USA,
> since many folks from the USA were not able to attend the Berlin workshop
> in 2011.
>
> To be honest, I find the arguments over whether Facebook *really* employs
> Linked Data to be a red herring, as regardless of how one interprets "5
> stars", Linked Data is not a magic bullet that encompasses all of "social"
> (if it was a magic bullet, it's a rather slow-moving magic bullet, although
> perhaps a bit quicker than the magic bullet of ontologies) and 2) we still
> lack usable, standards-compliant software that can provide the social
> functionality that Facebook provides, i.e. profile, friending
> (relationships), access control, and so on that can be used within a modern
> HTML5 framework in a cross-platform fashion. Emphasis on "usable" and
> "modern" :)
>

I agree that the degree to which facebook employs linked data is a red
herring *to this conversation*.  My point, was that if you or the W3C
intend to form a Working Group for *standardization* of the social web in
the context of Business (or enterprise or W3C membership), having facebook
at the table is essential.  Please bear in mind that you did reach out and
ask who should be on the program committee.

The value of Linked Data in a *federated* context (although compelling) is
a different conversation.


>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Andreas
>>
>>
>
>