In that regard, there seems to be quite a big hole in ActivityStreams (or I've missed something obvious).
I searched the archives of this list, and wiki.activitystrea.ms and found nothing that corresponds to the items that you see on services like Facebook that say/show things like:
♥ Sally just became single.
♥ John is in a relationship.
etc.
For the relationship case, if a direct object is specified, e.g.
♥ John is in a relationship with Dana.
Then this can be represented by "Post"ing a "Status" with an embedded XFN link surrounding "Dana".
However, my understanding of the justification given for introducing new AS verbs is to provide an opportunity for AS consuming applications to provide a different user interface / look+feel for different activities, and potentially who/what they are done with/to, thus this use case is likely deserving of a different verb than "post" (or even "update").
Is there already an ActivityStreams answer for this?
None of the current verbs in the schema seem specific enough:
Nor does there appear to be any examples of how you do this on the wiki or list.
In addition, this has revealed two use cases that XFN doesn't handle, 1) updating relationship status to explicitly "single", and 2) updating relationship status to "in a relationship" without a known (or perhaps an undisclosed) direct-object. However, I'm in favor of basing any microformat solution for this on an ActivityStreams solution.
So, bottom line:
What is the (potentially new) AS verb/object for stating "... is single", "... is in a relationship" ?
:) this came up during my wedding as well. You are completely right we
have only modeled one type of XFN relationship: friending
We definitely want to be able to model this with pure activity stream
concepts.
To me there are 2 major approaches
The first generic approach is to leverage the verb: Update which is
fairly new and define an Update Activity to have a field name and
value thus allowing us to model general profile changes like "Monica"
changed her last name to "Wilkinson", "Monica set spouse to Matt",
"Sally set her relationship status to Single"
Or we can model this specifically for relationships under the argument
that this are fairly significant
So we would then need some new verbs "date", "marry", "break up",
"reconcile"... ok im being funny but yes that would follow the current
model we have with friend and follow.
To me this latter approach is better suited for human consumption and
the first one is better suited for data synchronization.
We may need both
On Jul 23, 12:31 pm, Tantek Çelik <tan...@cs.stanford.edu> wrote:
> In that regard, there seems to be quite a big hole in ActivityStreams
> (or I've missed something obvious).
> I searched the archives of this list, and wiki.activitystrea.ms and
> found nothing that corresponds to the items that you see on services
> like Facebook that say/show things like:
> ♥ Sally just became single.
> ♥ John is in a relationship.
> etc.
> For the relationship case, if a direct object is specified, e.g.
> ♥ John is in a relationship with Dana.
> Then this can be represented by "Post"ing a "Status" with an embedded
> XFN link surrounding "Dana".
> However, my understanding of the justification given for introducing
> new AS verbs is to provide an opportunity for AS consuming
> applications to provide a different user interface / look+feel for
> different activities, and potentially who/what they are done with/to,
> thus this use case is likely deserving of a different verb than "post"
> (or even "update").
> Is there already an ActivityStreams answer for this?
> None of the current verbs in the schema seem specific enough:
> Nor does there appear to be any examples of how you do this on the wiki or list.
> In addition, this has revealed two use cases that XFN doesn't handle,
> 1) updating relationship status to explicitly "single", and 2)
> updating relationship status to "in a relationship" without a known
> (or perhaps an undisclosed) direct-object. However, I'm in favor of
> basing any microformat solution for this on an ActivityStreams
> solution.
> So, bottom line:
> What is the (potentially new) AS verb/object for stating "... is
> single", "... is in a relationship" ?
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 12:58 PM, Monica Keller <monica.kel...@gmail.com>wrote:
> So we would then need some new verbs "date", "marry", "break up", > "reconcile"... ok im being funny but yes that would follow the current > model we have with friend and follow.
hmm, isn't there an ontology problem in trying to map out the contours of human relationships, especially at a meta-level like this? is there some way to abstract a grammar for it so that different endpoints can share their possible relationship states and work within them?
Christian Crumlish wrote: > On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 12:58 PM, Monica Keller <monica.kel...@gmail.com>wrote:
>> So we would then need some new verbs "date", "marry", "break up", >> "reconcile"... ok im being funny but yes that would follow the current >> model we have with friend and follow.
> hmm, isn't there an ontology problem in trying to map out the contours of > human relationships, especially at a meta-level like this? is there some way > to abstract a grammar for it so that different endpoints can share their > possible relationship states and work within them?
wouldn't you need to use URIs for that rather than just string literal verbs?
Discussion subject changed to "Zawinsky principle of social software, "... is single", "... is in a relationship", which (new?) verb?" by Christian Crumlish
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 1:06 PM, Christian Crumlish <x...@pobox.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 12:58 PM, Monica Keller <monica.kel...@gmail.com> > wrote:
>> So we would then need some new verbs "date", "marry", "break up", >> "reconcile"... ok im being funny but yes that would follow the current >> model we have with friend and follow.
> hmm, isn't there an ontology problem in trying to map out the contours of > human relationships, especially at a meta-level like this?
In short no.
These kinds of questions were brought up with the launch of XFN seven years ago, but they were all theoretical. XFN is broadly implemented web-wide today.
> is there some way > to abstract a grammar for it so that different endpoints can share their > possible relationship states and work within them?
Again I'd say no. "abstract" is the wrong approach.
Right approach: sample *actual* uses on sites like Facebook, and model them or at least the 80% of such real world use cases. Anything more can be left to academic research and paper writing based on the results of our implementations.
Let's solve the simple cases simply. Nothing more, nothing less.
Hi Nathan,
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 1:10 PM, Nathan <nat...@webr3.org> wrote:
> wouldn't you need to use URIs for that rather than just string literal > verbs?
Well, one that Facebook doesn't model is 'separated' (ie still legally married, but divorce likely underway). I've had several people complain about this to me...
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 1:21 PM, Tantek Çelik <tan...@cs.stanford.edu>wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 1:06 PM, Christian Crumlish <x...@pobox.com> > wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 12:58 PM, Monica Keller <monica.kel...@gmail.com
> > wrote:
> >> So we would then need some new verbs "date", "marry", "break up", > >> "reconcile"... ok im being funny but yes that would follow the current > >> model we have with friend and follow.
> > hmm, isn't there an ontology problem in trying to map out the contours of > > human relationships, especially at a meta-level like this?
> In short no.
> These kinds of questions were brought up with the launch of XFN seven > years ago, but they were all theoretical. XFN is broadly implemented > web-wide today.
> > is there some way > > to abstract a grammar for it so that different endpoints can share their > > possible relationship states and work within them?
> Again I'd say no. "abstract" is the wrong approach.
> Right approach: sample *actual* uses on sites like Facebook, and model > them or at least the 80% of such real world use cases. Anything more > can be left to academic research and paper writing based on the > results of our implementations.
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Activity Streams" group. > To post to this group, send email to activity-streams@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > activity-streams+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<activity-streams%2Bunsubscrib e@googlegroups.com> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/activity-streams?hl=en.
I'm relatively familiar with XFN but wasn't sure how broad (or deep) adoption has been. Seems like there are some cute artifacts in XFN (like "muse") - don't they go beyond supporting the 80% cases?
Tantek elik wrote: > On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 1:10 PM, Nathan <nat...@webr3.org> wrote: >> wouldn't you need to use URIs for that rather than just string literal >> verbs?
apologies, I was thinking of the 'Turning the schema into a keyword registry rather than using URIs' thread and had assumed that this would be the case moving forwards.
Discussion subject changed to "Zawinsky principle of social software, "... is single", "... is in a relationship", which (new?) verb?" by Monica Keller
> Tantek elik wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 1:10 PM, Nathan <nat...@webr3.org> wrote:
> >> wouldn't you need to use URIs for that rather than just string literal
> >> verbs?
> apologies, I was thinking of the 'Turning the schema into a keyword
> registry rather than using URIs' thread and had assumed that this would
> be the case moving forwards.
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 1:22 PM, Christian Crumlish <x...@pobox.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 1:10 PM, Nathan <nat...@webr3.org> wrote:
>> wouldn't you need to use URIs for that rather than just string literal >> verbs?
> probably so. I'm hazy on how this would be implemented... ;^)
Not sure why this would be necessary -- URIs have no more explicit semantic information than keywords. They just provide namespacing. But there was a lengthy thread on this earlier for anyone who wants to revisit arguments for and against ditching lengthy URIs in favor of more concise key works (tokens, whatever).
> I'm relatively familiar with XFN but wasn't sure how broad (or deep) > adoption has been. Seems like there are some cute artifacts in XFN (like > "muse") - don't they go beyond supporting the 80% cases?
They supported the 80% cases at the time (blog rolls and mentions of people on blogs).
However this demonstrates that even *with* design-by-empirical-research as a reality check, it is possible to overdesign a schema etc.
Just another reminder to keep things ridiculously minimal simple and then iterate.
When in doubt cut it out.
The counter-example is of course rel="me", which we decided to not put into XFN 1.0, only to find out from folks that they wanted it, put it in XFN 1.1, and now it's perhaps the most useful XFN value, or second most used next to rel="contact". Though even there, little harm was done by excluding it at first, and only adding it later when it was more obvious that it was needed.
Hi Monica,
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 1:38 PM, Monica Keller <monica.kel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> @Tantek yes we should model what is in the wild today. A lot of the > profile info changes have not been very granular so far
Right, and I think this one is particularly useful/important for Activity Streams per the Zawinsky social software principle.
Does anyone have screenshots of "is single" or "is in a relationship" status posts?
@factoryjoe.com - do you have screenshots of this in your Flickr compendium somewhere?
Please add more examples to the wiki, of what you've personally *seen* on Facebook (not just "want"), and *especially* other sites too.
Does anyone know of any other sites that show relationship changes in any significantly different way like Facebook does? MySpace? Windows Live? Anybody?
