W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-fedsocweb@w3.org > May 2013

Re: Proposal to develop best practice document to focus work of W3C FSW Community Group

From: Darrell Prince` <prince.darrell@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 8 May 2013 13:14:08 -0400
Message-ID: <CAP761QJHkp0M75yjB4SQFoipvKDHtdwsWQXXBoJh7tnCPGFCdw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
Cc: "Michiel B. de Jong" <anything@michielbdejong.com>, "public-fedsocweb@w3.org" <public-fedsocweb@w3.org>
I'm interested in helping. I am just now looking at w3's work, having been
in my own silo on this for about 5 years. I think putting all of the
protocals up with columns of information, and having a group debate the
metrics by which an approach should take makes sense. But how many people
support it and developers and all that just means we should try to lobby
Facebook. I think it should be a flexibility, and functionality criteria
and then look to customize something existing to go forward.

At the end of these standards, in order to be federated, we are essentially
talking about one system. Standardized storage, as well as back ends,
basically with infinitely customizable GUIs. The major issue is
permissioning, and we would probably want to have expiring permissioning-
so people can only keep our data but so long.

Keeping the wiki updated won't be difficult as long as there is a vibrant
community working on the project, and I think there's lots of folks who
will want to get on board with this, as the founder of the internet is a
part. I will help with outreach.

Haven't seen tim's 5 star approach yet but linked data is the place to be.

Can we ask for time commitments of our members?

On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 7:52 AM, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>wrote:

> On 8 May 2013 13:37, Michiel B. de Jong <anything@michielbdejong.com>wrote:
>> i think instead of creating a best practice document, we can just make
>> sure the wiki is complete and up-to-date:
>>     http://www.w3.org/2005/**Incubator/federatedsocialweb/**
>> wiki/Main_Page<http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/federatedsocialweb/wiki/Main_Page>
> are you volunteering to keep this wiki up to date? :)
>> how do you propose to measure the relative importance of competing
>> protocols? shouldn't we leave that to the market to decide, instead of
>> trying to apply a top-down decision on that? sure, i agree that the wiki
>> should reflect how active each project/protocol is, we can try to give the
>> reader a sense of
>> - how many developer are currently working on/with a certain protocol?
>> - how many software projects/independent code bases "speak" the protocol?
>> - does it pass SWAT0?
>> - how  many servers / active user accounts support it?
>> i would say let's just keep giving all protocols and projects in the
>> ecosystem a fair chance to present themselves here, and exchange
>> experiences. maybe a winner will emerge, maybe not. but choosing one
>> through a mailinglist-vote sounds like a bad idea.
> sure, voting has a weakness from vote stuffing
> equally market based metrics are helpful but should not be a straight
> jacket, facebook has the most users but not every aspect of facebook is
> appropriate for a federated social web (though some certainly are)
> as Andreas suggested, the approach similar to tim's 5 star approach to
> linked data makes sense ... w3c groups are designed to promote
> interoperability through standardization ... it's certainly possible to
> create such a metric along similar lines
>> my 2ct,
>> Michiel de Jong.
Received on Wednesday, 8 May 2013 17:49:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:15:19 UTC