- From: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>
- Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2010 12:33:05 +0200
- To: cperey@perey.com
- Cc: public-xg-socialweb@w3.org
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 11:06 AM, Christine Perey <cperey@perey.com> wrote: > 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. Thanks Christine - I agree, the term "media" is better, and social is redundant. Enjoy Lhasa. I'm still working on the report, lots more edits to go in the first half today. > 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 10:33:34 UTC