--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "OpenSocial and Gadgets Specification Discussion" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/opensocial-and-gadgets-spec/-/MrvUP0xYqkQJ.
To post to this group, send email to opensocial-an...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to opensocial-and-gadg...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/opensocial-and-gadgets-spec?hl=en.
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "OpenSocial and Gadgets Specification Discussion" group.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/opensocial-and-gadgets-spec/-/F4E01bXNG9wJ.
http://wiki.portablecontacts.net/w/page/17776143/Software%20and%20Services%20using%20Portable%20Contacts is a pretty good list of PoCo implementations in the wild.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "OpenSocial and Gadgets Specification Discussion" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/opensocial-and-gadgets-spec/-/MKJAE0QMdAYJ.
To post to this group, send email to opensocial-an...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to opensocial-and-gadg...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/opensocial-and-gadgets-spec?hl=en.
Hmm... not to be pedantic, but "standard" is being used quite loosely
here. It's a fairly decent starting point yes, but it's certainly no
standard.
Here's a proposal: let's move the poco spec into open social, remove the parts that have anything to do with protocol and define poco solely in terms of data model, and call it, The OpenSocial Person Model.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "OpenSocial and Gadgets Specification Discussion" group.
Ok... There's nothing that says an implementor that adopts the basic OS data model has to adopt everything else too. How about this alternative: let's do what I suggested but publish it to IETF instead.
Ok... There's nothing that says an implementor that adopts the basic OS data model has to adopt everything else too. How about this alternative: let's do what I suggested but publish it to IETF instead.
On Mar 6, 2012 12:40 PM, "Joseph Smarr" <jsm...@gmail.com> wrote:
Historically, we intentionally kept PoCo separate but "wire-aligned" so that people who (for whatever reason) didn't want to buy into OpenSocial could still use PoCo (and many did this, e.g. MSFT), but those who did use OpenSocial would be PoCo-compliant vs. fragmented. I think this is still the right balancing act going forward.
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 2:48 PM, James M Snell <jas...@gmail.com> wrote:
Here's a proposal: let's move the poco spec into open social, remove the parts that have anything to do with protocol and define poco solely in terms of data model, and call it, The OpenSocial Person Model.
On Mar 5, 2012 2:44 PM, "Joseph Smarr" <jsm...@gmail.com> wrote:
Google+ already does support PoCo as the schema of our people endpoints (see e.g. https://developers.google.com/+/api/latest/people), as well as full PoCo for the Google Contacts API. The full PoCo spec definitely needs to be freshened up to deal with things like OAuth 2 that happened since we wrote it, and many people are using the schema without adopting the full protocol (e.g. W3C Contacts API), which is fine since it still achieves a lot of the portability goals of common data representations.
On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 9:17 PM, Mark W. <weitzelm.work> wrote:Joseph,Is Google+ going to adopt or support PoCo? Without Google, that list seems rather limited. Also, it does not look as though there's been much activity (no pun intended) on these for some time.
Perhaps what we should do is try to revive the PoCo community, and the Google+ team, and the OpenSocial folks and all try to align on one, updated spec. There are a lot of really exciting ideas in this space that are being proposed.Who is driving the PoCo community? I'm more than happy to reach out to them and see if they've got any ideas.Also, is Google willing to participate or would they prefer to go it alone?-Mark W.
On Thursday, February 23, 2012 6:06:48 PM UTC, Joseph Smarr wrote:http://wiki.portablecontacts.net/w/page/17776143/Software%20and%20Services%20using%20Portable%20Contacts is a pretty good list of PoCo implementations in the wild.
On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 1:04 PM, Mark W. wrote:Hi Joseph,Do we have a list of folks, outside of OpenSocial containers, that have adopted PoCo? Also, will the new Google+ APIs be based on PoCo?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "OpenSocial and Gadgets Specification Discussion" group.
To post to this group, send email to opensocial-and-gadgets-spec@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to opensocial-and-gadgets-spec+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/opensocial-and-gadgets-spec?hl=en.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "OpenSocial and Gadgets Specification Discussion" group.
To post to this group, send email to opensocial-and-gadgets-spec@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to opensocial-and-gadgets-spec+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/opensocial-and-gadgets-spec?hl=en.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "OpenSocial and Gadgets Specification Discussion" group.
To post to this group, send email to opensocial-and-gadgets-spec@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to opensocial-and-gadgets-spec+unsub...@googlegroups.com.