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

It sounds to me (bias admitted) like we really want to do is come up with a
set of specifications for how data is stored and classified; so that any
sort of application, view I choose can access what I give it permission to.
I would also want a subset of data to be open as part of an aggregate but
not a specific. i.e. I could be fine with the city I'm in counting me as a
resident, and a member of certain demographics, but may not want my current
address public.

As I said, we can on board more people, and will do so, but we would have
to have a strong core, projects and tasks.

I don't really see how we can separate the list of network features from
best practices; how will we have any idea of what works, or what should be
specified without knowing what is out there.



On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 1:30 PM, Melvin Carvalho
<melvincarvalho@gmail.com>wrote:

>
>
>
> On 22 May 2013 18:12, Goix Laurent Walter <
> laurentwalter.goix@telecomitalia.it> wrote:
>
>>  Hi all,****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> I’m jumping late in the thread trying to better understand the goal of
>> the proposal. “best practices” seem valid to me when dealing with a limited
>> set of reference specs in order to clarify some “most common usages” of
>> them in specific contexts. As some already pointed out we are plenty of
>> more or less updated lists of existing initiatives/standards doing similar
>> things, although each focusing on a slightly different aspect.****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Perhaps in order to make the fsw cg more efficient we could ****
>>
>> **1)      **start identifying some “areas of interest” within the whole
>> fsw topic. E.g. privacy (& distribution), search, mobile, scalability etc.
>> ****
>>
>> **2)      **open anyone/any project to contribute to the areas of his
>> interest and describe how it addressed it and what should be improved****
>>
>> 3)      by merging and discussing commonly on each topic we’d likely
>> identify concrete opportunities to make current specs/standards evolve,
>> which imo would be a very nice result of the group.
>>
>>
>> I think the idea is to make a document which shows the best practices for
> how different social networks can communicate.  e.g. breaking down walled
> gardens.
>
> By all means, privacy, mobile, search, scalability are great things to
> tackle, but over the last couple of years at least, we've not had the level
> of activity to have a productive discussions
>
> If the group can overcome basic challenges such as allowing heterogeneous
> systems to friend and message each other, I think that kind of success
> story could spur on further efforts.
>
>
>
>>  Over the past years I led the “Social Network Web” work item within the
>> Open Mobile Alliance forum, which substantially is a combination of the
>> opensocial specs (for device-server communication) and ostatus suite (for
>> federation), with the ability to also reuse phone numbers as user identity.
>> The mapping of opensocial & ostatus communication flows was one of the most
>> challenging part in order to achieve a decent end-to-end spec and we learnt
>> through prototyping the various issues and possible improvements of the
>> core specs we rely on.****
>>
>> To cite some examples: pubsubhubbub & salmon may be evaluated to merge,
>> pubsubhubbub may support additional communication channels, etc****
>>
>> Having all the most relevant actors of such specs in this group could be
>> useful to share experiences, issues and proposals for solutions to evolve
>> such specs and eventually converge into a reduced subset of specs that gain
>> consensus. I do believe that the current fragmentation of initiatives slows
>> down the deployment of large federations…****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Is this somehow what was in mind with “best practices” or am I off-topic?
>> In that case does my (additional9 proposal make sense to anyone?****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Cheers****
>>
>> walter****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> *Da:* Melvin Carvalho [mailto:melvincarvalho@gmail.com]
>> *Inviato:* mercoledì 22 maggio 2013 9.56
>> *A:* Andreas Kuckartz
>> *Cc:* Dileepa Jayakody; Daniel Harris; public-fedsocweb@w3.org
>> *Oggetto:* Re: Wiki page Re: Proposal to develop best practice document
>> to focus work of W3C FSW Community Group****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> On 22 May 2013 08:37, Andreas Kuckartz <A.Kuckartz@ping.de> wrote:****
>>
>> Dileepa Jayakody:****
>>
>> > +1, I think we should accumulate related topics,projects and
>> > protocols into one place/document, and regulation can be done in the
>> > next step.
>> > Discussions will be highly useful to select best projects, practises
>> > IMO.****
>>
>> A document which is an accumulation of material would not be a Best
>> Practices document. To mention specific projects would require the
>> evaluation of all known projects according to objective criteria. That
>> is a lot of work. I do not see enough activity in this Community Group
>> to do that. The previous FSW working group produced a document
>> containing a list of projects:
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/socialweb/XGR-socialweb-20101206/#Decentralized
>>
>> I do not think that this list was very helpful. Important projects were
>> missing and about half of the listed projects are now dead.
>>
>> My suggestion is to concentrate on compiling Best Practices, not on Best
>> Products.****
>>
>>
>> +1
>>  ****
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Andreas****
>>
>>  ** **
>>     Questo messaggio e i suoi allegati sono indirizzati esclusivamente
>> alle persone indicate. La diffusione, copia o qualsiasi altra azione
>> derivante dalla conoscenza di queste informazioni sono rigorosamente
>> vietate. Qualora abbiate ricevuto questo documento per errore siete
>> cortesemente pregati di darne immediata comunicazione al mittente e di
>> provvedere alla sua distruzione, Grazie.
>>
>> *This e-mail and any attachments** is **confidential and may contain
>> privileged information intended for the addressee(s) only. Dissemination,
>> copying, printing or use by anybody else is unauthorised. If you are not
>> the intended recipient, please delete this message and any attachments and
>> advise the sender by return e-mail, Thanks.*
>> *[image: rispetta l'ambiente]Rispetta l'ambiente. Non stampare questa
>> mail se non è necessario.*
>>
>>
>