- From: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2015 12:09:02 +0100
- To: public-socialweb@w3.org
On 01/28/2015 09:54 PM, James M Snell wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 11:02 AM, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org> wrote:
>> On 01/28/2015 12:28 PM, James M Snell wrote:
>>>
>>> Some thoughts on the Social API...
>>>
>>> At the core, the majority of the social APIs reviewed reduce down to a
>>> handful of relatively simple concepts. Let me see if I can effectively
>>> classify them.
>>>
>>> 1. We have any number of Social Artifacts. These are distinct
>>> resources that represent various kinds of Things: People, Groups,
>>> Organizations, Various kinds of content, Responses of various types,
>>> etc. If you look at the Activity Streams Vocabulary, you can see that
>>> we already have many (if not most) of these Artifacts already
>>> identified.
>>
>>
>> sounds reasonable
>
> No one has ever accused me of being "reasonable". I'll have to try
> harder next time ;-)
>
>>
>>> 2. There are a couple of specific Social Artifact that are considered
>>> central to social systems: that of an Identity and a Profile. The
>>> Identity represents the authenticated individual. The Profile
>>> represents a description of the Individual. Secondary to the Identity
>>> is the Persona. A Persona is some scoped aspect of the Identity. For
>>> example, "jasnell@us.ibm.com" represents one of my Persona's.
>>> "jasnell@gmail.com" represents another, as does
>>> "http://www.twitter.com/jasnell". These are separate Personas mapped
>>> to the same Identity. A Profile can describe an Identity or a Persona.
>>> Persona's are themselves a type of Identity.
>>
>>
>> I agree with the basic distinctions you're making, but...
>>
>> I'd frame it like this: there are people and accounts. In normal usage, we
>> often assume a 1-1 relationship between people and accounts, and that's how
>> most systems are designed to work. In practice, however, people sometimes
>> have multiple accounts and occasionally multiple people share one account.
>> (In some systems, one or both of those is against the Terms-of-Service, but
>> I think we'd agree it still happens.)
>>
>> A profile is the visible-to-others data about an account.
>
> Agreed. I purposefully drew out the larger distinction between
> Identity/Persona/Profile as a way of framing the discussion. I don't
> like just calling it "people" and "accounts" because we may be dealing
> with non-rational entities as well. There are many possible actors
> that can play.
>
>>
>> In general, computers probably should just be thinking about accounts, not
>> people. When they start to connect up the different accounts that people
>> use, and make inferences about the people behind those accounts, they often
>> do the wrong thing, because those accounts are often separated for reasons
>> that are too subtle to be well-modeled by the computer. (This is the
>> account I don't want my boss to know about, this is the account I don't want
>> my kids/parents to know about, etc....) There may be times where for
>> specific reasons it makes sense to connect accounts, though.
>>
>> If you want to model people (what you're calling "Identity"), as opposed to
>> just using accounts, I'd like some very compelling use cases.
>>
>
> The key case here is that there is a solid and obvious trend towards
> linking multiple accounts together. For instance, when I create an
> account in one system, it may ask me to link my social service
> accounts from Facebook, Twitter, Github, wherever. These are separate
> Persona's that I, as a user, am being asked to associate with one
> another. It's my choice to do so. The "Identity" is more of an
> abstract concept in this case... a linking concept that ties the
> various Personas together. It does not need to be explicitly modeled
> in the software but it still exists in the conceptual model.
I'm OK with a profile distinction from a personae/identity distinction.
However, I'm not OK with a "real-world" identity distinction being required.
I agree there is a lot of linking of accounts. But maybe that's exactly
what it is - *linking* of accounts. If a person wants to associate
themselves with some accounts, more power to them, but they may not want
to. In that case, I'd say that in general we should keep the idea of
forcing linking to a *real* "identity" out of the discussion.
It might be easier to just say there are "personae/identity" and each
persona is linked to one or more multiple profiles (accounts), and that
there may be an infinite number of personae/identity that can be
subclasses of each other - and leave the rest out of it.
If the term "personae" is too vague and implies possibly fictional
personae in some systems, you could just replace personae with the term
"identity".
>
>>> We can formalize this
>>> using:
>>>
>>> :Identity a owl:Class .
>>>
>>> :Persona a owl:Class ;
>>> rdfs:subClassOf :Identity .
>>>
Again, just use either "Identity" or "Persona" and link them together,
so that the "James Snell at Work" identity/personae is just a
persona/identity which is a subclass of "James Snell" identity/personae.
>>> :Profile a owl:Class .
>>>
>>> :hasPersona a owl:ObjectProperty ;
>>> rdfs:domain :Identity ;
>>> rdfs:range :Persona .
>>>
>>> :describes a owl:ObjectProperty ;
>>> rdfs:domain :Profile ;
>>> rdfs:range :Identity ;
>>> owl:inverseOf :describedBy .
>>>
>>> :describedBy a owl:ObjectProperty ;
>>> rdfs:domain :Identity ;
>>> rdfs:range :Profile ;
>>> owl:inverseOf :describes .
>>
>>
>> I kind of like the trick of having the identifier for the account (aka
>> persona) also be the URL for the profile. I'd also make that the root URL
>> for the user's webspace. EG http://tantek.com/ or
>> http://sandhawke.livejournal.com/
>>
>> I know some people don't like that, though, so maybe we can't collapse the
>> three. Still, it's painful to have the identifier for the account/persona
>> not be either of those two URLs. If it's not one of those, what is it,
>> and how can we make sure people understand it and use it correctly?
>>
>
> I agree that it would be ideal to collapse these but I don't believe
> we can get away with it entirely. For instance, within IBM we have a
> corporate "Intranet ID" which is essentially our work email addresses.
> We use these ID's to log in to various services internally, including
> our internal deployment of our Connections product. We have a couple
> of different systems that provide a Profile that describes an
> individual. The Connections Profile is distinct from our Corporate
> Employee Directory profile although there is a trend towards combining
> the two. In this case, the two profiles have distinct URL identifiers
> separate from our "Intranet ID" identifier.
>
> Using the rough sketch model I describe above, an instance of this
> would look like:
>
> <mailto:jasnell@us.ibm.com> a :Identity, :Persona ;
> describedBy <http://directory.example.org/?id=jasnell@us.ibm.com>,
> <http://connections.example.org/profiles?id=abc123> .
>
> <http://directory.example.org/?id=jasnell@us.ibm.com> a :Profile ;
> describes <mailto:jasnell@us.ibm.com> .
>
> <http://connections.example.org/profiles?id=abc123> a :Profile ;
> describes <mailto:jasnell@us.ibm.com> .
>
> Now again, this is just a rough sketch model to help frame the
> conversation. I'm not arguing that this is how we have to model the
> API... only that these are the conceptual elements we need to be
> thinking about.
Again, I don't see what the "identity" concepts buys us over just using
personae, unless we assume identity is their "real" identity as an
actual person while personae aren't. Again, there may be personae that
aren't associated with a "real-world" identity, and discussing
"real-world" identity can be problematic: Do we only mean state-approved?
Let's aim for the most simple vocabulary that can get the job done. So,
in the above example, it's unclear what "a :Identity" buys us.
>
>> Maybe this is out-of-scope, but it's hard to think about a social API
>> without some of these notions.
>>
>>>
>>> 3. The various kinds of Actor's we have defined as part of the
>>> Activity Streams Vocabulary are all types of Identities.
>>
>>
>> Link? None of the occurrences of the word "actor" at
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/WD-activitystreams-vocabulary-20141023/ seem
>> relevant.
>>
>
> That draft is out of date. Hopefully the updated draft will post
> tomorrow. Until then, look here:
> http://jasnell.github.io/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/activitystreams2-vocabulary.html.
>
> Note also, in the rough sketch model I outlined, :Persona is a
> subclass of :Identity. When I say "Identity" I mean to cover what you
> are calling accounts as well.
>
>>> 4. All of the other Social Artifacts are owned by an Identity.
>>
>>
>> -1 Everything needs to be associated with accounts ("personas"), not
>> people ("Identity"). Otherwise you quickly end up with things associated
>> with the wrong account, and then my personal work ends up owned by my
>> employer, etc.
>>
>
> See previous comment :-)
>
>>>
>>> 5. All Social Artifacts can be organized into Collections.
>>>
>>> 6. Collections are themselves a type of Social Artifact.
>>
>>
>> Not sure what that means. Too vague. But sure....
>
> Consider a photo album. The album is a collection composed of
> individual artifacts but can itself be viewed as an Artifact. It can
> be shared, liked, commented on, etc.
I'm ok with artifacts and collections of artifacts - as long as we don't
end up in the headspace where we force the usage of RDF collections :)
>
>>
>>> 7. Identity, Persona and Profile are all types of Social Artifacts
>>> that can be owned by an Identity (an Identity can either own itself or
>>> be owned by another Identity).
>>>
>>> Given these presumptions, the Social API needs to provide a means of
>>> discovering basic information about an Identity, including:
>>>
>>> A. Discovery of any Persona's associated with the Identity
>>> B. Discovery of any Profile's describing the Identity
>>> C. Discovery of any Social Artifacts owned by the Identity
>>
>>
>> (again, let's stay away from Identity)
>>
>>> Further, the Social API ought to allow the owner of a social artifact to:
>>>
>>> D. Create, Modify or Delete the Artifact
>>> E. Permit other Identities to View the Artifact
>>
>>
>> accounts. as your boss, I'm likely to grant access to certain files to
>> your employee account, not your personal account which I know you sometimes
>> like your kids use.
>>
>> etc.... (I'll ignore this issue for the rest of this email)
>>
>>> F. Permit other Identities to Create, Modify or Delete the Artifact
>>
>>
>> It's a bit radical, but I love the POSSE idea that you only create or modify
>> things in your own space. It simplifies some of this quite a bit (although
>> it brings up other complications).
>>
>
> I agree that POSSE is good but it does not reflect the reality of many
> existing social systems. Take Facebook, for example: when you post,
> are you posting to your own space or to a shared space? Likewise with
> Twitter, Github, Connections, etc. I have no problem with supporting
> POSSE in general but it cannot be the only point of view we take.
We should support group-owned spaces. That comes up again and again.
>
>>> G. Permit any Identity to Perform Actions relative to the Artifact
>>> (Like, Unlike, Share, Comment, Annotate, etc)
>>
>>
>> Are those "actions" any different from creating new Artifacts?
>>
>
> Not likely.
>
>>> H. Provide a means of recording which Actions have been performed
>>> relative to an Artifact.
>>>
>>> There are at least two key flows to consider:
>>>
>>> 1. I have an Identity, I need to discover information about this
>>> Identity, potentially including what Artifacts are owned by this
>>> Identity and what Actions I can take on those Artifacts. (e.g. is
>>> "acct:joe@example.org" the same as "http://example.org/joe" ? Does
>>> "joe" have a blog? Can I comment on those blog entries? etc)
>>>
>>> 2. I have an Artifact, I need to discover what Identity owns this
>>> artifact and what Actions I can take on the Artifact. (e.g. can I
>>> "Like" it? can I "Share" it? can I "Comment" on it? etc)
>>
>>
>> Thinking of these as just data queries and data create/update works pretty
>> well for me.
>>
>
> +1
>
> - James
>
>>> >From here it should be straight forward to construct an API. I'll post
>>> a few thoughts on that a bit later on.
>>
>>
>> I love how the mail system still inserts the ">" before your line starting
>> "From", because of the how poorly the mbox format was defined ~35 years ago
>> (as I recall -- not going to get distracted by looking it up).
>>
>> -- Sandro
>>
>>> - James
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
Received on Thursday, 29 January 2015 11:09:12 UTC