Re: Final report starting to take shape: state of social web and frameworks

Hi,

Off to a great start on the report!

Although I will not be able to participate in today's conference due to 
travel (writing this from Internet cafe in Lhasa), I've quickly read the 
draft of SWXG final report on the wiki, made some comments and light 
editing of some sections for readability, etc.

On the points below, I feel strongly that what we called "content" 
Framework emphasize, in the new and improved title, that this concerns 
users' MEDIA.

I would drop the "social" since in the context of this report all is 
social.

Wish you a great meeting!

-- 
Christine

Spime Wrangler

cperey@perey.com
mobile +41 79 436 68 69
VoIP (from US) +1 (617) 848-8159
Skype (from anywhere) Christine_Perey

On 7/21/2010 3:02 AM, Harry Halpin wrote:
> Everyone,
>
>    I've started editing the final report by trying to stitch together
> the truly tremendous amount of information we gathered together on our
> wiki. Here's a first draft of the first half [1]. There's been some
> structural changes, i.e. merging the use-cases each into sort of
> meta-use cases and then merging those in turn with the framework from
> Christine and Renato.
>
> There's a few changes to the framework as well.
>
> 1. Social platform rather than social application, reserving
> "application" for bits of code (like in Javascript, but also FBML)
> running over the web, i.e. like in WebApps. Otherwise confusion will
> happen. Also removing "social web services" and saying "social
> application" because the term "web services" in W3C circles tends to
> mean W3C Web Services based on SOAP, which is pretty far from the
> lightweight stuff we are talking about it.
>
> 2. Upon talking this framework system through with a few social
> networking (but non-w3c) friends of mine, people think that while
> "policy" is more accurate for a framework term, it will cause
> confusion. Better to call it "privacy" and then explain what "policy"
> is. Having sort of same thoughts about just calling "content"
> framework a "social media" framework.
>
> 3. Since the "analytics" framework is quite far off and the "activity"
> work (i.e. ActivityStreams, Ostatus) is quite mature, I'm thinking we
> should add an "Activity" framework and put "analytics" in an emergent
> section.
>
> I'll try to do a proofread and add some pictures before tomorrow's
> call. But no guarantees!
>
> Let's discuss this tomorrow!
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/socialweb/wiki/FinalReport
>
>
>

Received on Wednesday, 21 July 2010 09:07:14 UTC