RE: High-level social web guiding principles to SWxG

Hi All,
 
many thanks for all the feedback received so far.
 
Dan and I believe it is better to discuss it on the telcon.
 
Dan will be there tomorrow evening, and I will join the call next week again - my appologies but I will not be able to attend tomorrow,
 
Regards
Anita
 
 

________________________________

From: Melvin Carvalho [mailto:melvincarvalho@gmail.com] 
Sent: Freitag, 15. Januar 2010 22:40
To: Chris Saad
Cc: Danny Ayers; Döhler, Anita, VF-Group; public-xg-socialweb@w3.org
Subject: Re: High-level social web guiding principles to SWxG




On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 6:49 PM, Chris Saad <chris.saad@gmail.com> wrote:


	Hi everyone, 

	This seems similar to the media 2.0 best practices

	http://m2bp.pbworks.com/

	I would debate a few of the points below as not necessarily relevant/enforceable - see below  
	
	
	On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 3:16 AM, Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com> wrote:
	

		[forwarding to Chris Saad, there seems a big overlap with
		DataPortability in these principles, I'd like to hear his take]
		
		2010/1/14 "Döhler, Anita, VF-Group" <Anita.Doehler@vodafone.com <mailto:Anita..Doehler@vodafone.com> >:
		>
		> Hi All,
		>
		> We think a definition of high level principles which constitute the Social Web would be useful in the context of defining the framework for the Social Web and its concepts.
		>
		> Attached/below a proposal of so far 5 principles for dicsussion on the mailing list and/or at the next SWxG telcon.
		>
		> High level principles
		>
		> 1.      What you see depends on who you are.
		


	Why? Maybe the site is designed to have a water cooler style 'what's popular' approach (like most sites today) - why mandate a personalized experience?
	 

		>
		> 2.      Once defined, you can use your connections and relationships, across different Social Networks or Social Applications.
		


	Sure
	 

		>
		> 3.      You can expose your content (User Generated Content) to different Social Networks or Social Applications, without the need to store the content in these networks/applications.
		


	Why dictate the storage (or lack thereof). Some apps may need to store local copies to function (like an image editor app running on top of the facebook or flickr photo store).

	The key is being able to share your images with the app (if they store it or not is irrelevant) and choose to DELETE your account at any time. Both should be available to the user.
	 

		>
		> 4.      You can define the access control on a per item basis, either per contact, or per group.
		


	Maybe, but this is less about rights and more about value prop of the app - what if the app is about sharing everything to everyone, why mandate that they provide access controls to content. It's up to the user to choose an app that behaves how they want it to.
	 

		>
		> 5.      You can communicate with connections no matter which Social Network or Social Application you share.
		


	Communication is different to access to your personal data, in my mind. Again it is a proprietary value prop that an app may choose to provide, or not. The point with DP, though, is that I can move my personal data to a better communication app if I choose.

	There is some gray area here but generally I think this often confuses the issue rather than clarifies it.


Chris, I think you've made some good examples.  However, my take on reading the text of the original high level principles seems not to preclude any of your examples, but rather, to suggest the user has a degree of choice in the mater.  
 

	 

		>
		>
		> Looking forward to hearing your comments w/r the need of agreeing on high level principles & their concrete content/wording,
		>
		> Regards
		> Dan (A) & Anita
		>
		>
		
		
		
		--
		http://danny.ayers.name