- From: Christine Perey <cperey@perey.com>
- Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2010 15:16:25 +0200
- 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