W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-poiwg@w3.org > August 2010

Re: The WG's Three Letters

From: Appelquist, Daniel, VF-Group <Daniel.Appelquist@vodafone.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2010 14:48:05 +0200
Message-ID: <C87F2015.12E79%daniel.appelquist@vodafone.com>
To: "Thomas Wrobel" <darkflame@gmail.com>
Cc: "Christine Perey" <cperey@perey.com>, <public-poiwg@w3.org>, "Chandra Sekhar P." <chandrasekhar.p@lge.com>
Hi Thomas --

FYI there is some work going on in the federated social web community on
ostatus http://ostatus.org - which is a wrapper spec for a number of
different specs in the social web space - e.g. Activity streams,
pubsubhubub, webfinger, etc... IMO any "social AR server-to-server" protocol
should become a part of this work...

Also points to: any work on POIs (or whatever we call them) should be
aligned with further development of this Ostatus protocol.

Dan

On 04/08/2010 13:19, "Thomas Wrobel" <darkflame@gmail.com> wrote:

[snip]
> 
> As for social AR, I am still passionate we need a complementary
> server<>server protocol in order to ensure that personal and secure
> group communication can be done without requiring all users on the
> same server. (for this I rather like the email analogy, we don't want
> everyone having to use Hotmail in order to send private messages to
> each-other).
> 
> That said, we must also not get too distracted. Any server<>server,
> social, communication protocol should be able to implement and use the
> exact same data formats and standards set up for general 1<>many style
> AR use's. Social is thus a secondary problem that would merely be a
> way to exchange data already established by solving our first bunch of
> problems.

Received on Wednesday, 4 August 2010 12:48:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:48:25 UTC