Re: Question: User Story -- Bootstrapping Facebook

Another thought:

As the social networking space is just one of many special use cases for
WebID, our conversations should focus on WebID as an authenticating
protocol, whether that is for single-sign on, for identifying and
verifying the owner of a given resource, or for establishing a Web of
Trust for a given user. How this is accomplished with WebID is what
matters. How or even if a given existing social network implements WebID
is a different issue.


> In the social networking space, it is important to remember that a webpage
> is dynamically assembled from disparate data resources. The content
> displayed is an amalgam of contributions from different people. Thus it is
> rarely the case that the contents of an entire page will be owned and
> controlled by a single person (entity).
> It is also important to remember that social networking is about user
> streams--the assemblage of content contributions that coalesce to create a
> conversation, to capture interaction between users. That is what makes it
> a social experience.
>> On 10 Feb 2011, at 15:11, Stéphane Corlosquet wrote:
>>> The fact that on the Web, you do not know who authored each bit of a
>>> page.
> With regards to not knowing “who authored each bit of a page”, that can
> easily be addressed. Each piece of datum can be marked up with a WebID to
> indicate the owner of a particular content contribution. So, even on a
> given user’s profile page, any data that was not created by and is not
> owned or controlled by the profile owner, can clearly be indicated. Of
> course, implementing that facility would be up to the overall platform
> owners.
>> On February 10, 2011 9:39, Henry Story wrote:
>>> (This thread is a bit skizzo. Here we are in the part of this thread
>>> giving advice to FB)
> With regards to discussions about FB, I believe that we should not make
> any assumptions about what they will or will not do when it comes to
> WebID. They created their own customized ontology with OGP instead of
> using the already available open ontologies. Some speculate that they may
> be trying to “win” the identity wars by turning their platform into the
> largest, proprietary identity protocol broker on the Web. They will do
> what is in their best business interest. If WebID serves a business
> purpose, then they will implement it to the extent that they see fit. All
> we can do is put forth a series of WebID use cases and then let the
> various social networks, including FB,  decide how and if they will use
> it.
> Since the Social Web is about the global conversation and usage space and
> not just about what happens within a single, often siloed, social network,
> I suggest that at this time we concentrate more on the fundamentals of
> WebID, and not on how a particular space may or may not implement WebID.
> Our WebID use cases should provide a sufficient width and breadth so that
> current and future open and proprietary Web-based systems can properly
> evaluate the virtues of WebID for their specific use.
> Whereas I do agree that conversations like this are informative and useful
> in helping us craft our WebID use cases, I think that trying to solve very
> specific and unique technical WebID implementations for a particular,
> proprietary player, such as FB, may not be in our best interest at this
> time.
> Jeff

Received on Thursday, 10 February 2011 17:01:56 UTC