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

Re: OStatus and Social AR [was: RE: The WG's Three Letters]

From: Christine Perey <cperey@perey.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2010 15:16:25 +0200
Message-ID: <4C596829.6040101@perey.com>
To: "Appelquist, Daniel, VF-Group" <Daniel.Appelquist@vodafone.com>
CC: public-poiwg@w3.org, "Chandra Sekhar P." <chandrasekhar.p@lge.com>
Hi Dan,

Just curious, in your experience with these projects in the past, how 
does the community (or a group like OStatus [1] and a W3C WG) decide 
what gets rolled up into what?

In other words, do those in the Ostatus activity (which I see is version 
1.0 draft 1) want to include development of a "social AR 
server-to-server" protocol in the scope of their work?

It doesn't appear that OStatus is an activity group of a small or larger 
industry or standards forming body.

Would it be good to --how does one go about-- adding Ostatus group as 
one of the external liaisons on the new (Draft) WG charter [2]?

-- 
Christine

Spime Wrangler

cperey@perey.com
mobile +41 79 436 68 69
VoIP (from US) +1 (617) 848-8159
Skype (from anywhere) Christine_Perey

[1] http://ostatus.org/
[2] http://www.w3.org/2010/POI/wiki/Draft_Charter

On 8/4/2010 2:48 PM, Appelquist, Daniel, VF-Group wrote:
> 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
Received on Wednesday, 4 August 2010 13:17:02 UTC

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