I am consindering to implement a XMPP based social web protocol in a
desktop application.
Would you recommend to go with OSW or are there other projects that
are considered to be a better alternative nowadays?
<Daniel.Appelqu...@vodafone.com> wrote:
> We will Continue to work on the protocol, and will support any
> implementers (such as ProcessOne) and collaborate with them to improve
it
> and expand it. Our intention is to contribute the work we have done on
> XMPP
> extensions (e.g. Activity Streams over XMPP) into the relevant XMPP
> technical committees.
Is this still true? I would have considerably less reservations to
spend time on that project if the OSW protocol was proposed as a XEP
and I think others might agree.
Is ProcessOne still working on OSW support for ejabberd? Is there any
code to try?
> I am consindering to implement a XMPP based social web protocol in a > desktop application. > Would you recommend to go with OSW or are there other projects that > are considered to be a better alternative nowadays?
I hope this won't be considered bad form, but I haven't seen or heard of any progress on OSW for many months now, so I've recently begun concentrating efforts on buddycloud [0] instead, which is also XMPP-based.
> <Daniel.Appelqu...@vodafone.com> wrote: >> We will Continue to work on the protocol, and will support any >> implementers (such as ProcessOne) and collaborate with them to improve > it >> and expand it. Our intention is to contribute the work we have done on >> XMPP >> extensions (e.g. Activity Streams over XMPP) into the relevant XMPP >> technical committees.
> Is this still true? I would have considerably less reservations to > spend time on that project if the OSW protocol was proposed as a XEP > and I think others might agree.
Agreed. I don't think it's been proposed yet, but the buddycloud protocol is written up as a XEP. [1]
> Is ProcessOne still working on OSW support for ejabberd? Is there any > code to try?
Again, buddycloud is already usable with ejabberd (my preferred setup) [2, 3].
I don't mean to rain on the OSW parade and I hope people on this list won't take offense. I'd be happy to be involved in OSW again if it does turn out to still be active.
> I'm sorry you had to be here for this thread, Luca.
> On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 1:46 AM, Heiko Braun > <ike.br...@googlemail.com> wrote: >> +1 for buddycloud
I'd just like to point out, that while all progress with OneSocialWeb has effectively stalled, the fundamentals are sill basically sound and all the code is still there.
If you really want to contribute to a distributed social network using XMPP, then go with Buddycloud as it most certainly has a brighter future.
However, if anyone is interested in taking up work on OSW again, I, as well as several others, would love to hear from you.
My own attempt at the OSW protocol is mostly there, but I haven't put much effort into the OSW side lately. I would love to have assistance there. https://github.com/duck1123/jiksnu -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
> If you really want to contribute to a distributed social network using
> XMPP, then go with Buddycloud as it most certainly has a brighter future.
I will have a look at buddycloud then. What I like about OSW is that
it's protocol consists of 4 smaller parts that could be proposed as a
XEP and might have a chance to get accepted. At the first glance,
buddyclound's protocol seems to be one big chunk.
> Daniel wrote: >> If you really want to contribute to a distributed social network using >> XMPP, then go with Buddycloud as it most certainly has a brighter future.
> I will have a look at buddycloud then. What I like about OSW is that > it's protocol consists of 4 smaller parts that could be proposed as a > XEP and might have a chance to get accepted. At the first glance, > buddyclound's protocol seems to be one big chunk.
<as buddycloud dev>
Yes, it's a pretty big chunk. The reason for it is that we first want to get a working solution before thinking too much of making it a protocol.
<as buddycloud dev/>
I would be happy if you would join us on buddycloud-dev mailing list (https://groups.google.com/group/buddycloud-dev) or our conference channel (seeh...@buddycloud.org) to share your ideas, concerns and feedback.
From a perspective of an ex-"product manager" on OSW I would love to see the protocol and code taken up and used by others. Everything is open source. However, if anyone would like to evolve the protocol significantly then I would like to recommend doing it within the context of a w3c community group: http://www.w3.org/community/
Community groups are a new process by which working groups can be spun up quickly with very little overhead and no cost - groups that anyone can participate in (not only people from w3c member organizations). Although I cannot offer much of my time right now I would definitely help set up the infrastructure and support for creation of such a group.
On 7 January 2012 16:39, Daniel Appelquist <appelqu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all --
> From a perspective of an ex-"product manager" on OSW I would love to see the protocol and code taken up and used by others. Everything is open source. However, if anyone would like to evolve the protocol significantly then I would like to recommend doing it within the context of a w3c community group: http://www.w3.org/community/
> Community groups are a new process by which working groups can be spun up quickly with very little overhead and no cost - groups that anyone can participate in (not only people from w3c member organizations). Although I cannot offer much of my time right now I would definitely help set up the infrastructure and support for creation of such a group.
> </end-plug>
+1 to community group
If someone wants to start one, I'd be happy to vote it up. I'm sure it would not be an issue to get it approved ...
> I am cross-posting to the still functioning W3C Federated Social Web > Incubator mailing list.
> I remember that a decision was made a few months ago to create a W3C FSW > community group. But as far as I know this has not yet been done. If > there are no objections and no other volunteers I will attempt to do > that next week.
> It would also be a good home for OneSocialWeb people. I do not think > that it currently would make sense to create a separate OSW community group.
> The most appropriate home for the development of protocols such as XMPP > XEPs might be xmpp.org. But that also requires people who contribute.
> Cheers, > Andreas > ---
> On 11.01.2012 18:08, Melvin Carvalho wrote: >> On 7 January 2012 16:39, Daniel Appelquist<appelqu...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Hi all --
>>> From a perspective of an ex-"product manager" on OSW I would love to see the protocol and code taken up and used by others. Everything is open source. However, if anyone would like to evolve the protocol significantly then I would like to recommend doing it within the context of a w3c community group: http://www.w3.org/community/
>>> Community groups are a new process by which working groups can be spun up quickly with very little overhead and no cost - groups that anyone can participate in (not only people from w3c member organizations). Although I cannot offer much of my time right now I would definitely help set up the infrastructure and support for creation of such a group.
>>> </end-plug> >> +1 to community group
>> If someone wants to start one, I'd be happy to vote it up. I'm sure >> it would not be an issue to get it approved ...
