Re: What we need in a next-gen social network

On 26 November 2013 00:00, Nick Jennings <nick@silverbucket.net> wrote:

>
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 11:45 PM, Melvin Carvalho <
> melvincarvalho@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 25 November 2013 23:30, Nick Jennings <nick@silverbucket.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 11:24 PM, Melvin Carvalho <
>>> melvincarvalho@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 25 November 2013 22:30, Mark Janssen <dreamingforward@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It's completely controlled by the user.  However, like all things
>>>>> "internet", as soon as you publish something, you necessarily lose
>>>>> *some* control.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ah I see, so the user controls *what* data they put there, but not
>>>> *where* they put it.  I'd still perhaps like to see slightly more in the
>>>> way of options for the user before I would describe it as "self determined
>>>> storage".  I may have bought my own secure data storage area that I'd like
>>>> to use.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I know you're already aware of it Melvin, but just wanted to also
>>> mention remoteStorage [1] for the record. The goal of the project is to
>>> change the paradigm of web application development and provide a simple
>>> client-side library for implementing self determined per-user storage
>>> functionality by default.
>>>
>>> http://remotestorage.io
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Yes am quite familiar with this project and I also like the goals.
>> Although it's not a social network it could perhaps become part of a social
>> network.
>>
>> I think it support HTTP verbs such as GET, PUT and DELETE which is great!
>>
>> Some things I'd like to see to be able to use this library:
>>
>> A slightly more 'polyglot' approach to identity, so that I could log in
>> with my URL profile, as well as the 'user address' concept that this
>> library uses
>>
>> I'd like the library to be able to read my profile using linked data,
>> using web standards such as turtle, or JSON and then discovery where my
>> storage is.
>>
>> I've interacted quite a few times with he development team, and outlined
>> these requests, if we could get some of these standards supported, that
>> could start to be a great candidate for "self determined storage".
>>
>>
> Yup, I'm on board with you here on these things. One of my goals is to
> make the client-side JS library a bit more modular, so that the discovery
> portion can be extended. You could easily send it a user address or URL and
> it will give you back the storage data. This way, even if we initially just
> support Webfinger (like we already do) it would be easier to add small
> additions to make different types of discovery possible. For these things,
> I don't think the spec even needs to be altered, as the JS library would
> still behave 100% correct in regards to the spec, just with additional
> functionality outside of the scope of the spec.
>
> Using WebID instead of OAuth poses a bigger challenge though.
>
> Like you say, we have a limited amount of resources at the moment, and our
> current top priority is stabilizing the library, serious bug-squashing,
> increasing our integration testing coverage, and updating it to be
> compliant with the latest version of the spec, and a few other features
> already in the works. As I'm working full time on Sockethub and web
> application development I will have to find some time to really have a look
> at this, but hopefully someone else runs with it sooner :)
>

Great will follow the progress :)


>
> Cheers
> Nick
>
>
>