all smoke and mirrors?
kiakanpa
this, but i am a developer. It unfortunatly does not solve the real
problem of social networking. Until there is a common DECENTRALIZED
social network this is all a bit pointless. I can develop an app that
can be ran on myspace and linkedin (for example), but until a myspace
user can add a linkedin user as a friend we are still stuck with the
current 'silo' social networks.
Now, google how about extending the api to have openid & foaf built
in? that way every user can be unique regardless of which social
network they are on, and they can access the correct server (via
openid) to add friends from anywhere.
I know it will involve work, and could be done independantly, but
unless it is part of the official api it will be ignored.
heres hoping
Aaron Cheung
kiakanpa
openid - why reinvent the wheel) would be fine. a person 'controls' a
url either set up by themselves or from an existing social network,
this will allow a friend with another url to find them. Data can then
be exchanged using opensocial api, but, and this is the big bit, there
friends can be added based on the openid url, i.e. the friend could be
on any social network or not be on a network but have implimented the
server side api themselves i.e. it would all be open
On Nov 2, 12:51 pm, "Aaron Cheung" <ache...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think a lot could be inferred from the DNS system in existence, which is
> reasonably proven, save a few weaknesses, but then nothing is perfect..
>
> That said, even DNS requires a bunch of Root Servers.. in which case,
> is the DNS system DEcentralized enough, given decentralization being
> of beneficial importance.. plus, also, there's this Registry concept as
> well..
>
> Then, what about the P2P kind of decentralization.. and the Skype kind of
> operational experience, for example, also nicely proven thus far..
>
> Or mightbe there're more pertinent protocols/rfcs someone's working on?..
>
> Regards,
> /ac.
>
> On 11/2/07, kiakanpa <g...@kiasworld.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Dont get me wrong, this looks good and i am thankful to google for
> > this, but i am a developer. It unfortunatly does not solve the real
> > problem of social networking. Until there is a common DECENTRALIZED
> > social network this is all a bit pointless. I can develop an app that
> > can be ran on myspace and linkedin (for example), but until a myspace
> > user can add a linkedin user as a friend we are still stuck with the
> > current 'silo' social networks.
>
> > Now, google how about extending the api to have openid & foaf built
> > in? that way every user can be unique regardless of which social
> > network they are on, and they can access the correct server (via
> > openid) to add friends from anywhere.
>
> > I know it will involve work, and could be done independantly, but
> > unless it is part of the official api it will be ignored.
>
> > heres hoping- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Paul Lindner
The reason OpenSocial has tremendous uptake was due to
its simplicity and wide applicability.
Federating logins across multiple containers is a whole different
game.
That said, one thing that isn't mentioned much in the launch
is the RESTful Server-Side version of OpenSocial calls.
The potential is there for one OpenSocial container to make calls to
another
OpenSocial container, once the credentials are set using OAuth.
For example, let's say that a hi5 user adds a livejournal 'sister-
account' to their
profile. Then, using OAuth that hi5 user can allow hi5 to talk to
livejournal's server
side open social API.
That's one reason I'm so excited about this. Open Social is breaking
down the
walled gardens and allowing interoperability where it never existed
before.
Aaron Cheung
Kay
all social networks. At the end of the day, each social network that
exists is there for a purpose - whether it's about finding old friends
and from there making new ones (facebook) or finding out about the
hottest new bands (MySpace). Why would a person on LinkedIn want to
add a person on MySpace? The two are poles apart. If all social
networks are decentralised, you may as well stop playing on the web
and go down the street introducing yourself to random people.
People *need* a focus as to WHY they subscribe to a particular network
and not another. Just making it easy to connect between networks
seems totally pointless to me. Ultimately, an individual should pick
out the networks that MOST interest them rather than being a member of
all networks and then only giving 5 mins participation per week to
each. Connections made need to be fostered - they don't work if they
are one minute wonders.
Anyways, just thought I'd throw that on the bonfire. And in true
shameless plug fashion: check out http://www.meshminds.com - another
site that is very keen to join the Partners Programme... If anyone can
assist, please let me know. If you're curious about what we do:
http://www.youtube.com/meshminds
K
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
kiakanpa
you know, not to find new friends. therefore findability is irrelevent
as you tell people your openid as you would an email
On Nov 2, 1:48 pm, "Aaron Cheung" <ache...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Not so sure if openid enables a person's findability well enough, and
> if not, then the opensocial apis won't be living up to their potential.. ;-)
> /ac.
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
kiakanpa
offence!), what i mean is that some of my friends are on facebook,
some on myspace, others on bebo. I dont want to have to have three
accounts just to stay in contact with them all, nor do i want to
introduce myself to random strangers or lose friend just because they
pick a different social network to me.
I am not saying impliment all features on all social networks, what i
am saying is status updates, messages etc. should be universal amongst
all social networks, not just to a few friends who happen to be in the
same place as you
On Nov 2, 1:49 pm, Kay <k...@meshminds.com> wrote:
> I completely disagree that the "right" way to go is to decentralise
> all social networks. At the end of the day, each social network that
> exists is there for a purpose - whether it's about finding old friends
> and from there making new ones (facebook) or finding out about the
> hottest new bands (MySpace). Why would a person on LinkedIn want to
> add a person on MySpace? The two are poles apart. If all social
> networks are decentralised, you may as well stop playing on the web
> and go down the street introducing yourself to random people.
>
> People *need* a focus as to WHY they subscribe to a particular network
> and not another. Just making it easy to connect between networks
> seems totally pointless to me. Ultimately, an individual should pick
> out the networks that MOST interest them rather than being a member of
> all networks and then only giving 5 mins participation per week to
> each. Connections made need to be fostered - they don't work if they
> are one minute wonders.
>
> Anyways, just thought I'd throw that on the bonfire. And in true
> shameless plug fashion: check outhttp://www.meshminds.com- another
Aaron Cheung
aiamark
over communication from network to network, just like AT&T can't only
route calls from AT&T calls. The need for all players to use each
others tech in order to truly be effective in communication is
necessary. I would not want to have to have a Sprint, Verizon, and
AT&T account to talk to my friends who have the various phone
providers. So, are we not talking about the same situation of not
wanting to have to sign up for facebook, myspace and others to connect
with our friends who might be using a network other than the one I am
using. Phones were a great invention, but the power was not leveraged
until everyone had one and did not have to go to the local operator to
make a phone call....
On Nov 2, 9:16 am, "Aaron Cheung" <ache...@gmail.com> wrote:
> hmm, very debatable.. I have been using social networks to locate old
> friends
> and have been pretty successful so far.. they're real persons and old
> friends
> (ie., people i know, actually for 30+ yrs), but then, lost contacts (some
> for
> over 25 years, before even email was "became popular").. that said,
> regarding
> new friends, well, ask the linkedin.com guys.. and, people search would be
> good size biz from within facebook (already?) and etc etc. (too many to
> name)..
> cheers, /ac.
>
Aaron Cheung
don....@gmail.com
> social network this is all a bit pointless. I can develop an app that
> can be ran on myspace and linkedin (for example), but until a myspace
> user can add a linkedin user as a friend we are still stuck with the
> current 'silo' social networks.
I agree with you 100%. I was disappointed as i learned more about what
opensocial is and is not. Then i realized something - say you add
another layer on top of opensocial. something that abstracts the user
concept into a foaf document for example. To implement that you'd need
to read and write to a person's profile on each network. opensocial
makes available exactly that.
> Now, google how about extending the api to have openid & foaf built
> in? that way every user can be unique regardless of which social
> network they are on, and they can access the correct server (via
> openid) to add friends from anywhere.
a single Foaf Person could have multiple profile links. opensocial
just needs to give r/w access to each network. let the abstraction
layer link those networks together. now who stores the data for the
abstraction layer? each user stores their foaf profile where they
want, but there isnt an easy foaf storage place on the net that i know
of. right now its nerds keeping hand-editing XML documents on their
own web servers.
Don