Re: Federation protocols

On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 9:31 PM, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>wrote:

>
> On 1 June 2013 21:16, Nick Jennings <nick@silverbucket.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 3:39 PM, Melvin Carvalho <
>> melvincarvalho@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 31 May 2013 11:50, Michał 'rysiek' Woźniak <rysiek@fwioo.pl> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dnia piątek, 31 maja 2013 o 06:59:52 Melvin Carvalho napisał(a):
>>>> > On 30 May 2013 20:26, Michał 'rysiek' Woźniak <rysiek@fwioo.pl>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > The web was designed to be social from day 1.  There are standards
>>>> for this
>>>> > kind of thing, but they are highly underused, with perhaps, the
>>>> exception
>>>> > of facebook.
>>>>
>>>> Are you talking about how Facebook uses XMPP? Otherwise, I don't see
>>>> the "open
>>>> social interoperable standard" in Facebook (although, granted, I'm not
>>>> a user
>>>> there).
>>>>
>>>
>>> There are many things about facebook that are not ideal, such as privacy
>>> issues and centralization, but it is a market leader and some of the
>>> technology is worth examining, imho
>>>
>>> There is the xmpp, but I'm more referring to how facebook uses web
>>> standards to federate.  Facebook federation is found on over 10% of all
>>> websites, so they must be doing something scalable.  The techniques are to
>>> leverage HTTP via the open graph protocol
>>>
>>
>> Is it true federation though? I was under the impression that true
>> federation, in the SMTP sense, would mean that users don't have to have a
>> facebook account in order to interoperate.
>>
>
> The answer is 'it depends'.  Some aspects such as facebook like are
> centrallzed and require a facebook account.  Other aspects such as
> opengraph protocol, which let you type in a url and it gets the image,
> title, description etc. are independent of any social network and usable by
> anyone.  Things like schema.org and goodrelations are also compatible
> with this.  The deployment is significant, we are talking about high digit
> millions of sites.  That's one motivation for activity streams 2.0 to align
> themselves.
>
>
So, is grabbing a name and an avatar from a URL federation? I thought
federation was more of a two way street. Perhaps you are correct on a very
basic level, but I think we've been talking about much more than that.
Following, messaging, commenting, etc.