R: R: Social API: Scope

[snip]

> >
> > I would also add an additional question on the scope of the WG
> > regarding social data: we're now talking quite a lot about AS2.0 as
> > candidate to represent social activities.
> >
> > -          Is the representation of social profile and
> > relationships also in scope? We use to have PortableContacts
> > referenced by ostatus and opensocial for this. But of course other
> > alternatives exists (foaf etc). This is imo fully part of "social
> > data" in general, but I'd like to know the opinion of the group
> >
>
> We imagine those will be application-defined. Vocabularies (ala
> FOAF/PortableContacts/vCard/etc.) then happen in Social IG.
>
> > -          Furthermore, what about social identity? E.g. define
> > common recommendation (or something more impelling) about
> > identifiers to be used in a federated context. I am thinking in
> > particular of specific URI schemes such as the acct: URI or
> > similar. To which extent is this group willing to discuss and
> > "agree" on URI schemes to be used as identifiers?
>
> URIs will definitely be supported. Emails can be turned into URIs, as
> can accounts via the accnt URI scheme. What else do you want in detail?

[walter] in general if we want (i am speaking in broad terms, maybe beyond the scope of w3c in this field) to have interoperable - federated - social networks in the future we should keep in mind that they are likely to be managing an identity and a list of relationships of ours. This means that they will have to offer interoperable ways of addressing users, and whilst technically not mandatory, access their profile and/or list of relationships (one could always say that this information stays private and/or implementation-/service provider-specific).
We all know there are already many ways of expressing this information (profile/relationships), and many URI schemes to address users, and it probably would make less sense to define yet others.
My question is thus wrt w3c social WG/IG: will the social WG provide any "recommendation" on a specific (set of) formats/URI schemes to use, or will the IG provide any "best practice/guidelines" to suggest the use of specific URI schemes (e.g. acct:) and profile/rels format (e.g. foaf, poco?)? or is this fully out of scope and anyone (including other community/sdo) may be free to combine what will be produced here with these other specs?
I hope I clarified my point.

Thanks
walter

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.

Received on Friday, 1 August 2014 16:25:45 UTC