W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-socialweb@w3.org > January 2015

Re: ldp + swat0

From: Evan Prodromou <evan@e14n.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2015 18:03:52 -0500
Message-ID: <54C96AD8.6090901@e14n.com>
To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, "henry.story@bblfish.net" <henry.story@bblfish.net>, "public-socialweb@w3.org" <public-socialweb@w3.org>
CC: Carvalho Melvin <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>, Halpin Harry <hhalpin@w3.org>, Andrei Sambra <andrei.sambra@gmail.com>
SWAT0 is a terrible use-case for this discussion, since it's intended 
specifically for federation between sites.

I'd really recommend sticking with the requirements that were devised 
with the client-to-server API in mind, so you don't confuse yourselves.

Also: PLEASE take a look at the Open Social Activity Streams API. We can 
get most of what we need by using Activity Streams 2.0 documents as 
commands -- "post a photo", "post a comment", "like this photo". 
Relatively few endpoints and a lot of flexibility.

I did a nice diagram showing an API with OpenSocial Activity Streams as 
the base:

https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/API/Layers

It might be helpful to aid in your thinking.

If you'd like to start sketching out a social API following these 
principles, let's connect on IRC.

-Evan

On 2015-01-28 11:37 AM, Sandro Hawke wrote:
> Henry and I were talking on IRC, and started a web page for this:
>
>     https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/LDP-SWAT0
>
>
> How often do you get to title a section of a document "Is Tantek 
> interested?"
>
> Seriously, I think SWAT0 is missing some spam and overload awareness.
>
>      -- Sandro
>
> On 01/27/2015 04:04 PM, henry.story@bblfish.net wrote:
>> I would like to work on the LDP based API to fit the Evans' [1] and Swat0's [2]
>> requirements. This is going to be most fun if we do it as a group, so perhaps
>> those of us here who have experience with LDP and those who would like to learn
>> about how to think of it could gather and try to work out in a light weight manner
>> how to sketch the main outlines of such an API.
>>
>> We could do this on the rww Community Group perhaps [3] and report on the W3C Social
>> Web WG iteratively the results ( so that the learning curve does not end up being too
>> high ).
>>
>> It would be good if as a group we could work out what the required results of this
>> work should be.
>>
>> Henry
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 27 Jan 2015, at 21:41, Harry Halpin<hhalpin@w3.org>  wrote:
>>>
>>> My proposal was that we take Evan Prodromou's draft requirements [1]
>>> for an API and see if Evan and others interested can whiteboard an API for that
>>> addresses SWAT0 [2] (and as much of the requirements EvanP found as the
>>> editors think are reasonable for the API), keeping in mind OpenSocial's
>>> previous work and LDP in mind in order to pave the cowpaths.
>>>
>>> Then, as long as SWAT0 and any other requirements are clearly
>>> demarcated, we could at least start discussing a draft API in more
>>> concrete terms.
>>>
>>>    cheers,
>>>        harry
>>>          
>>> [1]https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/Social_API/Requirements
>>> [2]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/federatedsocialweb/wiki/SWAT0
>> [3]http://www.w3.org/community/rww/
>>
>>
>>
>> Social Web Architect
>> http://bblfish.net/
>>
>>
>>
>
Received on Wednesday, 28 January 2015 23:04:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:26:14 UTC