RE: Intro slides for Sophia discussion of Social Web

Thank you Walter, for this contribution!  I inserted your slide into the larger set, which I will send in another email.

Question:

You put the title " Mobile equilibrium of social network specifications".  I'm trying to understand what you mean by 'equibrilibrium' in this context.  I wonder if you mean "Mobile equivalent of social network specifications"?

I haven't fully absorbed all your other points, and likely will not by the time of the AC meeting.  I didn't want you to think I was ignoring them.

  -- Ann


From: Goix Laurent Walter [mailto:laurentwalter.goix@telecomitalia.it]
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2012 1:28 PM
To: GALINDO Virginie; Jeff Jaffe; public-socialweb@w3.org; Bassetti, Ann; hhalpin@w3.org
Cc: Venezia Claudio
Subject: R: Intro slides for Sophia discussion of Social Web

Hello all,

I won't be joining you next week but Claudio as our AC rep is well aligned...

Staying at high level in the discussion the classification efforts (component-wise & layer-wise) is definitely a great achievement. It may be worth putting in scope of this work also a" component-dependency" graph (meaning a diagram representing the dependencies/references across components). I am not sure this is what is meant by "relationships between parts" in the slides but it may be discussed next week as part of the "social network/web ecosystem rationalization" thread. I am attaching a draft of it (incomplete and based on my limited knowledge of it) to give an idea...

Another "thread" I see in scope for the future of this activity is a standard_body-wise classification, "as of today" and "to be": clarifying "who does what" in terms of SDO for the future of social web standardization would definitely help in collaborating and speeding up the work over the next years. It will also help clarifying, as w3c team, what is "in scope" of the standardization work in this area for the future.
As we know several bodies (oma, ietf, opensocial, etc) are now addressing only part of the SN topic, and some aspects (components) are not yet being addressed by an SDO or similar but only as "community spec". This is excellent as a starting point as this guarantees the validity of a spec through iterative implementation feedbacks, but this also needs at some point probably to be "officialized" through an SDO. At this stage a very rough/simplistic division could say that activitystreams (project) covers somehow data formats (not all), opensocial covers client-server apis (intra-SN) and JS references, ietf covers discovery (although not as official item), and OMA covers mobile & end-to-end aspects ("end-to-end" meaning the aggregation+glue of the former specs into a user-oriented service). Each of these could be considered the "reference sdo" on its topic.
Personally, I think that the "federation" topic (started by ostatus) would benefit being the main focus of w3c (and be recognized as such by other sdos), especially protocol-wise. Such topic has historically been addressed by w3c (with use cases etc) although so far no draft spec of the related protocols (e.g. pubsub, salmon) are hosted on w3c site. There may be various reasons for this but it would probably make sense if such specs evolve into something more stable that they become w3c recommendations eventually. A clear alternative is IETF obviously but the w3c expertise in that field as of now is probably higher. As virginie mentioned information management & distribution across social networks is indeed the most challenging topic and definitely deserves a well-established "home" for its standardization.

Regards
Walter


Da: GALINDO Virginie [mailto:Virginie.GALINDO@gemalto.com]
Inviato: venerdì 11 maggio 2012 12.22
A: Jeff Jaffe; public-socialweb@w3.org; Bassetti, Ann; hhalpin@w3.org
Oggetto: Re: Intro slides for Sophia discussion of Social Web

Dear all,

sorry for being quite those days, but as the discussion was going between social network specialists, I did not feel like having something to bring.

I have been through Ann slides and I am suggesting (and implementing in the attached document) few changes. Adding some transition slides, to make sure AC rep will catch the spirits I have perceived during our (I should say your) exchanges.
Feel free not to take my suggestions into account, as it is more cosmetic.

One question related to the proposed scope for standardization. I am fine with the idea of simplifying the profile management and distribution among social networks. My main question will be the control from the user standpoint : do we plan in W3C to include this use based control in the scope ?

One last question related to the layered vision -which can be answered after AC Rep meeting : why would you put the identity layer in the second layer, I feel it would be more between the session and the application layers. In case the numbering of layer do not have any importance, please forget this remark.

Regards,
Virginie
gemalto




From: Bassetti, Ann [mailto:ann.bassetti@boeing.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2012 10:27 PM
To: public-socialweb@w3.org
Subject: Bassetti slides for AC meeting

Here is my draft of how I would present our work on the diagrams, etc, at the upcoming AC meeting.  Feedback welcome!

  -- Ann
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.
[cid:image001.gif@01CD303B.DC952CE0]Rispetta l'ambiente. Non stampare questa mail se non è necessario.