I'm writing on behalf of the Social Web WG. Some of our specs are now
stable, and if we would value a review from your group at your earliest
convenience. While our primary use cases are often framed in terms of
social media and blogging, the technologies may be broadly applicable.
So far we have three specs in or near CR:
* *Webmention* lets you tell a website you're linking to it. This
supports ad hoc federation of sites
https://www.w3.org/TR/webmention/
* *Activity Streams* (2.0) is a standard (and extensible) way to
share a stream of what people do online (eg, "liking", posting a
photo, etc)
https://www.w3.org/TR/activitystreams-core/
https://www.w3.org/TR/activitystreams-vocabulary/
* *Micropub* provides a standard Web API to create and control posts
on your own website
https://www.w3.org/TR/micropub/
Additionally:
* *Social Web Protocols*: provides an overview, including an
explanation for how the parts fit (and sometimes do not fit)
together. This document does not currently have any normative content.
https://www.w3.org/TR/social-web-protocols/
There are other documents not yet ready for horizontal review. You'll
see them linked from Social Web Protocols, and we'll send another email
when they're in or near CR.
Note that the group is producing multiple stacks which are not entirely
compatible, reflecting the fragmentation in this space. Basically, we
decided having multiple competing specs, while not an ideal situation,
would still be a step forward.
If you think your group will be doing a review, please reply-all and let
us know your timeframe. We'd very much appreciate the actual review
comments being raised as issues on the repo for each particular spec
(linked in the title section), and then a high-level email or summary
issue stating when the review is complete.
Please feel free to share this call-for-review with anyone likely to be
interested.
Thank you!
-- Sandro Hawke, Staff Contact, W3C Social Web Working Group