- From: Bassetti, Ann <ann.bassetti@boeing.com>
- Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 22:53:37 +0000
- To: "henry.story@bblfish.net" <henry.story@bblfish.net>, Halpin Harry <hhalpin@w3.org>
- CC: "public-socialweb@w3.org" <public-socialweb@w3.org>
Could you hack together a prototype of this idea, Henry? I vaguely get the gist, but it would be so much more useful if I could see your idea in action. And, you know, Demos R Us! Can someone say how the pump.io or indieweb or any other community discusses stuff? That is, outside of email. I agree we seem to be guinea pigs, demonstrating a real-life social use case. (I was going to say "rat hole" .. but that seemed to be mixing my rodents!) -- Ann > -----Original Message----- > From: henry.story@bblfish.net [mailto:henry.story@bblfish.net] > Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 3:41 PM > To: Halpin Harry > Cc: public-socialweb@w3.org > Subject: Re: Issue-19 questions remain - a proposal > > > > On 21 Apr 2015, at 23:22, Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org> wrote: > > > >> > >> -- Is there a way for the wiki to send a notification when there is > >> an update? Does that happen via the Watchlist? (Personally I find it > >> hard to have to go look, randomly, for updates. That feels really > >> unproductive.) > >> > > > > We might be able to, although that would flood the mailing list. Thus, > > it seems wiser to simply note major changes in the telecon. > > > >> -- Should we agree to use the "Discussion" pages? > > > > We could, or just see the note re IRC. > > > >> > >> Or is IRC the place for conversation? It's great to use Loqi to tell! someone > (who's not present) something. It's great that there are daily logs. > > > > Of course, the larger problem may be some people simply may not want > > to discuss with each other, due to time constraints or fundamental > > disagreements. Again, that's not a WG issue per se nor solvable by a > > resolution. We cannot, for example, make a resolution saying "Tantek, > > you have to spend whatever time it takes to agree with bblfish even > > though you two disagree about how specs should be built." > > > > That being said, I think the IG should volunteer to host a discussion > > over Henry's stories. > > > > I'd like to stick the WG to technical topics that are clear and > > delimited rather than working style differences that are open-ended. > > I think Anne is asking: "how would this work even if people were willing to > discuss things". Clearly if people don't want to listen to each other and > discuss anything, but are just pushing an agenda then it is going to be difficult > to get to anyway close to a consensus, and consensus building is the mission > of the W3C. > > I understand that there are very strong divergences of methods and > undersanding of the space we are in. I have gone through all of them myself > at various points in the last 10 years. In any case at the face to face it was > agreed in fact that the group is not going to push for one standard because > the divergences are too strong at the moment. But for the divergences to > reduce then we need to have communication. > > So let's assume we do want to communicate, and look at the issues we can > deal with, namely buidling a process for communication. After all we are > trying to build a social web. Now there are a number of tools that one needs > to build to have a social web. > > One needs a way to send everyone in a group a message to alert them of > some project or idea, so that the whole group can focus its attention on a > particular topic. What tools can one use for this? > > a) mailing lists have until now been very good and served the W3C and IETF > well, as they allow a message to be sent from one to many > b) Wikis are not good unless the whole wiki has an RSS feed that people > would be expected to add to their blog reader and poll regularly. This as you > point out might be very noisy. > c) IRC channels have a way to ping one person, but not to ping the whole > group > ( the gitter chat for github has an @all, but that ends up working by sending > every > member an e-mail ) > > So if e-mail is out by Tantek's decision, and neither wikis nor irc channels are > the right tool for the job, then we have the following question: > > Q1: How would one do one to many communication using the Social Web > without relying on e-mail? > > This is a question we MUST answer. It should be part of our user stories, > since it is holding us up here. (But it is difficult to answer this if we don't have > a channel to communicate about the various ideas on how to answer it, > before we build it ). > > If we are to be able to do this now, using tools at our disposal, we need to > use existing standards. > Lukily I think they are available, and have been for 10 years. We could do it > like this: > > One answer is that the Social Web WG could have a URI, lising each member > of the group by their WebID, and that each WebID profile could describe that > user including a foaf:weblog relation to their blog ( which has a relation to > their RSS Feed where they can post their messages ). > > Eg the social Web WG would have > > <https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg#grp> foaf:member > <http://bblfish.net/people/henry/card#me>, > <http://www.ibiblio.org/hhalpin/foaf.rdf#me>, ... > > Then each of these WebID profiles would have a relation relating the user to > a blog like this: > > <http://bblfish.net/people/henry/card#me> foaf:weblog > <http://bblfish.net/blog/> . > > Then by a drag and drop operation on the Social Web foaf:Group into a feed > reader, the feed reader could fetch all those blogs, find the linked rss feeds, > and poll those regularly ( once a day at least ), and show the group member > what others have read. Perhaps we'd have to agree that blogs related to > social web WG would be tagged by a special tag, so that we could filter out > people's cat pictures from the discussion relevant to the topic. The W3C > could index all those posts in an archive. > > To do this we would not need to invent anything new, but we could use > existing standards such as: > • Atom feeds > • foaf profiles > > We'd still perhaps need to agree on a link relation to state that one atom > entry was a response to another one. Is this all we need to do? > > > Henry > > > Social Web Architect > http://bblfish.net/ >
Received on Tuesday, 21 April 2015 22:54:13 UTC