We don't need DataPortability
Chris Saad
http://www.ownyouridentity.com/2008/03/28/a-journey-of-a-thousand-steps/
Breslin, John
my reading is the post is that some of it is another talking/promoting vs. making/doing observation - one that will continue to rear its head but moreso recently...
but talking is important before doing at first (then can be done in parallel) - dataportability.org is still young... otherwise people who should be involved can be absent and solutions may miss vital parts/ideas (and i think the volunteer set is settling now).
there is a need to promote a chosen few of the concrete use cases / scenarios to be solved, with examples of deployment - i think this important for both tech ag (make/do) and evangelism ag (promote, show, tell) to consider next. the social network portability projects brian listed like dopplr and chi.mp from tony have should be cited.
wasn't there a list of 11 projects somewhere? url? thanks, john.
anders conbere
is really an argument about what side of problem you're on. A lot of
talk has happened (and good work been done) to promote the exposure of
users data (yay!), but little has been said and done to demonstrate
how that data can be made to help social network creator's lives
easier.
http://anders.conbere.org/journal/dataportability-needs-bring-something-table/
I've been saying this for a while now, but I think that if we want
adoption of tools like xfn and foaf that really mean something
(participants in that ecosystem not just digesters of data), we need
to have tools that bring something to the table. We need to provide
tools to help social network creators reduce the complexity of their
applications, reduce the entry cost of joining a social network, etc.
and right now importing data a) isn't at a point where it's dirt
simple for users, and b) isn't the big pain point for social network
creators.
That being said, if these tools provided ways to effectively abstract
the user relationships tables, and provided messaging tools etc. Those
are real pain points, and the easier we make those efforts the more
effective we'll be at selling this technology to up and coming social
networks.
~ Anders
Julian Bond
>
>Interesting post - be sure to read my comments and contribute :)
>http://www.ownyouridentity.com/2008/03/28/a-journey-of-a-thousand-steps/
This posts seems to me to be wandering all over the data portability
landscape with some fairly muddled thinking. Which I think really points
to the poor job being done by each group to explain what their part of
the solution does, why it's important and where it fits into the
landscape. So the question here for DataPortability is what we can do to
explain the concepts and help each group do a better job of explaining
themselves.
--
Julian Bond E&MSN: julian_bond at voidstar.com M: +44 (0)77 5907 2173
Webmaster: http://www.ecademy.com/ T: +44 (0)192 0412 433
Personal WebLog: http://www.voidstar.com/ skype:julian.bond?chat
Multigrain For A Unique Taste
Aaron Cheung
it's different thing to different people... another easier taken is OpenSocial, which
is potentially different thing to different players too... and regarding DataPortability,
it dynamically ranges from being an ideal, to a movement, or even to a "brand"..
and if it's a brand, what's DataPortability's brand promise?... Regards, /ac.
Phil Wolff
From the outside DP looks like a global, boil the ocean, monolithic
solution.
From the inside, DP looks like a Mission From God with small steps on
a lifelong journey.
We all want to get to heaven, but do you need faith in the Church of
DataPortability?
Or is it good enough to work the steps?
- Phil the DP Evangelist
On Mar 29, 2:56 am, Aaron Cheung <a...@ydrive.com> wrote:
> To me it's like explaining Democracy (ideals/values), or Web2.0 (style/movement)..
> it's different thing to different people... another easier taken is OpenSocial, which
> is potentially different thing to different players too... and regarding DataPortability,
> it dynamically ranges from being an ideal, to a movement, or even to a "brand"..
> and if it's a brand, what's DataPortability's brand promise?... Regards, /ac.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Julian Bond" <julian_b...@voidstar.com>
> To: <dataportabi...@googlegroups.com>
> Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2008 5:42 PM
> Subject: [DataPortability-Public] Re: We don't need DataPortability
>
Mary Trigiani
All I hear is a lot of complaining about this project without any
substantive content about what it is doing wrong and what other
churches are doing right. If there is anything substantive being
said, I'm not hearing it and want to understand how I can.
Further, by using the religious metaphor, are you saying that the
different churches will never agree?
Regarding your question, "good enough to work the steps," I guess I'm
not clear on what steps exist other than the process this project has
collaborated to create.
Thanks!
Chris Saad
We just need to keep our heads down and keep executing. We have a lot of good will at our backs, and a lot of good people helping us along the journey.
Some people see us as a big vendor play - but when they investigate a little further they will learn that it's a very grass roots effort that happens to have the endorsement of larger players
One step at a time, both inside and outside the project.
Cheers,
Chris
Chris Saad
FaradayMedia - For Audiences of One
Particls - Are You Paying Attention?
Engagd - The Open Attention Platform
Media 2.0 Workgroup - Social, Democratic, Distributed
APML - Your Attention Profile
DataPortability - Connect, Control, Share, Remix
Phil Wolff
I just want to understand what all the different churches are, Phil.
imho, DP.org is becoming the umbrella institution. Our goal is all encompassing and open to many technologies, where OpenSocial and Microsoft are advocating specific technologies to cover subsets of dp. The only other player is the Identity Commons because you can look at the dp problem as an extension of the id/identity problem, with id strategies working on dp problems.
All I hear is a lot of complaining about this project without any
substantive content about what it is doing wrong and what other
churches are doing right. If there is anything substantive being
said, I'm not hearing it and want to understand how I can.
OwnYourOwnIdentity's objection was to big bang, monolithic solutions. Experience suggests those rarely work. Clearly he didn't understand that's not what DP.org is about. That's fixed by education, I think.
Further, by using the religious metaphor, are you saying that the
different churches will never agree?
Churches reconcile all the time. Or perish when their memes cease to propagate.
Regarding your question, "good enough to work the steps," I guess I'm
not clear on what steps exist other than the process this project has
collaborated to create.
I think the Internet will build data portability "one day at a time" and DP's collection of practices will help.
managing editor, Skype Journal
http://SkypeJournal.com
pwo...@skypejournal.com
skype:evanwolf
+1-510-444-8234 San Francisco
+1-646-461-6123 New York
+44 020 8816 8780 London
+852 8175 8107 Hong Kong
http://www.linkedin.com/in/philwolff
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=724232370
Julian Bond
Blueprint or preferred approach that we could develop and then
evangelise. Even in the narrow area of porting profile and contacts data
from one place to another we're now seeing half a dozen approaches. And
those competing approaches are coming from big players who are unlikely
to agree in the short term about which is best.
This is making me think that DataPortability the organisation is really
about promoting the idea of data portability, helping explain what it
is, and working with groups that are building infrastructure or
applications and encouraging them to make it central to what they're
doing.
If that's the case then DataPortability looks less like a formal
standards organisation and more like a promotion vehicle. GetFirefox,
not Firefox; OpenidEnabled, not OpenId. It also implies that
DataPortability becomes a fairly loose clearing house for people who
believe passionately in this idea and encourages them to go out and
evangelise wherever and whenever it's needed.
The side effect of this is that no existing body should feel threatened
by DataPortability. There is no competition because what we would be
doing is promoting what they're doing not trying to replace it or choose
among alternatives.
Another side effect here is that formal governance procedures and
organisation process become much less important. The only thing that is
important is that lots of people are talking about data portability.
--
Julian Bond E&MSN: julian_bond at voidstar.com M: +44 (0)77 5907 2173
Webmaster: http://www.ecademy.com/ T: +44 (0)192 0412 433
Personal WebLog: http://www.voidstar.com/ skype:julian.bond?chat
Always Replace The Cap
Tony Haile
here and in the comments and thought I would chuck in my two cents. I
don't see Brian as being critical of data portability or Data
Portability. The main thrust of his post, at least as I read it, is
that for him the way to create greater engagement on a wider scale is
less about focusing on educating people about the need for data
portability and more about building systems with those concepts
enshrined that will let people educate themselves. It's not an
argument over goals, but, if anything, of focus in strategy.
We want people to say 'Hey, I can sync my friends lists on dopplr and
chi.mp, why can't i do that on Facebook?'. The true advance will be
when people are able to frequently experience examples of
dataportability such as those that Brian lists: 'They want to reuse
their Last.fm contacts to find the right muxtapes. They want to
invite all their PHP tagged contacts in Highrise to a particular event
on Upcoming.org. They want to share ffffound objects with select
groups.' and wondering why the hell this isn't the case for everything
they do, and then demanding it.
I don't see anything in those words that is not totally in sync with
the work of Data Portability. I can't speak for Brian, but I felt he
was in part outlining the way that those of us involved with Chi.mp
believe we can best engage with the issue; by building a system based
on its principles, giving users an idea of just what a completely open
and interoperable system can do for them and providing concrete
incentives for other sites to start opening up and taking part.
We are all on the same road here, and I'll be at the DP meetup in
London to learn a little more about how we can all walk a little
further.
Tony
www.ownyouridentity.com