Indicate relationship in Person object
57 views
Skip to first unread message
Laurent-Walter Goix
Sep 18, 2012, 10:51:35 AM9/18/12
to OpenSocial and Gadgets Specification Discussion
hi all,
i'd like to get guidance for indicating the type of relationship
between the registered user (viewer) and the target users when
retrieving Person objects. in particular i'd like to know whether a
user is one of my follower/following/friend.
from Social-Data 2.5 it seems that various fields exist but apparently
none addresses this use case:
- the connected flag is limited to bi-directional relationships
(friend) from the text
- the relationships plural field has the same limitation
- the tags plural field (mentioned in the relationships description)
is technically adequate but seems odd to me as this is not what i
would call *user-defined* (such as skills or other attributes i could
attach/edit to a user)
imo the relationships field would fit also for unidirectional
relationships (at that point that would depend on the value), and
maybe some reserved keywords could be useful for interoperability
(such as follower/following/friend for example).
i also have a doubt regarding the connected flag: following a user is
also having an active relationship that the user has explicitly
triggered so i would put it true, whilst i would consider follower a
non-relationship (VIPs are not "connected" with their fans in that
sense). but of course this is more about social sciences...
would you have any recommendation for this ?
thanks
walter
i'd like to get guidance for indicating the type of relationship
between the registered user (viewer) and the target users when
retrieving Person objects. in particular i'd like to know whether a
user is one of my follower/following/friend.
from Social-Data 2.5 it seems that various fields exist but apparently
none addresses this use case:
- the connected flag is limited to bi-directional relationships
(friend) from the text
- the relationships plural field has the same limitation
- the tags plural field (mentioned in the relationships description)
is technically adequate but seems odd to me as this is not what i
would call *user-defined* (such as skills or other attributes i could
attach/edit to a user)
imo the relationships field would fit also for unidirectional
relationships (at that point that would depend on the value), and
maybe some reserved keywords could be useful for interoperability
(such as follower/following/friend for example).
i also have a doubt regarding the connected flag: following a user is
also having an active relationship that the user has explicitly
triggered so i would put it true, whilst i would consider follower a
non-relationship (VIPs are not "connected" with their fans in that
sense). but of course this is more about social sciences...
would you have any recommendation for this ?
thanks
walter
James M Snell
Sep 18, 2012, 4:19:54 PM9/18/12
to opensocial-an...@googlegroups.com
Currently, unfortunately, there is no "generally acceptable" common way of doing this... which is to say, the right way right now is to do whatever works best for your particular application. Eventually, I would very much like to see significant work go into the evolving the social data model in OpenSocial so that it's more in line with the world of Linked Data and microdata ontologies. Once we get to that point, leveraging concepts of directed and undirected network graphs will become much easier. Until then, hack away and let us know what you find that works best within the existing structure :-)
- James
walter
--
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-an...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to opensocial-and-gadg...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Henry Saputra
Sep 18, 2012, 4:22:54 PM9/18/12
to opensocial-an...@googlegroups.com
Are you talking about like friends of friends network?
The only relationships that OS support is basically via social groups
which collect similar people into particular buckets
- Henry
The only relationships that OS support is basically via social groups
which collect similar people into particular buckets
- Henry
Laurent-Walter Goix
Oct 26, 2012, 9:21:32 AM10/26/12
to OpenSocial and Gadgets Specification Discussion
No, i'm simply talking about how to represent a relationship
(bidirectional or not) between 2 users. if you query @friends,
@followers or @following then presumably you already assume that the
people in returned list have that kind of relationship with the
current user.
however when querying @all (i.e. in case of search) or @self to get a
person's detail, you may benefit from this extra information of
knowing if that person is actually one of your followers/following/
friends.
in previous OS releases the "relationships" field (derived from PoCo)
was related to XFN values. this is not anymore mentioned, but still
the field assumes "bi-directional" relationships only. we'd like to be
able to indicate "followers", "following" (besides "friends", which is
already bidirectional), basically using tokens that are similar to a
Group-Id value. Reusing this field is very straightforward and the
spec could easily be relaxed to allow 1) uni-directional relationships
as well, 2) suggest "reserved" values as the *usual* ones used as
group-ids...
walter
On Sep 18, 10:22 pm, Henry Saputra <henry.sapu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Are you talking about like friends of friends network?
>
> The only relationships that OS support is basically via social groups
> which collect similar people into particular buckets
>
> - Henry
>
> >> For more options, visithttps://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
(bidirectional or not) between 2 users. if you query @friends,
@followers or @following then presumably you already assume that the
people in returned list have that kind of relationship with the
current user.
however when querying @all (i.e. in case of search) or @self to get a
person's detail, you may benefit from this extra information of
knowing if that person is actually one of your followers/following/
friends.
in previous OS releases the "relationships" field (derived from PoCo)
was related to XFN values. this is not anymore mentioned, but still
the field assumes "bi-directional" relationships only. we'd like to be
able to indicate "followers", "following" (besides "friends", which is
already bidirectional), basically using tokens that are similar to a
Group-Id value. Reusing this field is very straightforward and the
spec could easily be relaxed to allow 1) uni-directional relationships
as well, 2) suggest "reserved" values as the *usual* ones used as
group-ids...
walter
On Sep 18, 10:22 pm, Henry Saputra <henry.sapu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Are you talking about like friends of friends network?
>
> The only relationships that OS support is basically via social groups
> which collect similar people into particular buckets
>
> - Henry
>
Laurent-Walter Goix
Jan 30, 2013, 10:20:09 AM1/30/13
to opensocial-an...@googlegroups.com
as i am reviewing some features for 2.5.1 this is one of those where i guess a small change could be greatly helpful.
Specifically, the suggestion would be to update the current description of the Person "relationships" field from:
A relationship type that was established between the user and this person by the Service Provider. Note this field is a parallel set of category labels to the tags field, but relationships MUST have been bi-directionally confirmed, whereas tags are asserted by the user without acknowledgment by this Person. Note that this field consists only of a string value.
to
A string value consisting in one or more relationship types that were established between the user and this person by the Service Provider, which MAY or MAY NOT have been bi-directionally confirmed. Values "friends", "followers" and "following" are reserved and have the same meaning as the corresponding GroupId.Note that this field is a parallel set of category labels to the tags field, but tags are asserted by the user without acknowledgment by this Person.
is this opening acceptable to the group?
Specifically, the suggestion would be to update the current description of the Person "relationships" field from:
A relationship type that was established between the user and this person by the Service Provider. Note this field is a parallel set of category labels to the tags field, but relationships MUST have been bi-directionally confirmed, whereas tags are asserted by the user without acknowledgment by this Person. Note that this field consists only of a string value.
to
A string value consisting in one or more relationship types that were established between the user and this person by the Service Provider, which MAY or MAY NOT have been bi-directionally confirmed. Values "friends", "followers" and "following" are reserved and have the same meaning as the corresponding GroupId.Note that this field is a parallel set of category labels to the tags field, but tags are asserted by the user without acknowledgment by this Person.
is this opening acceptable to the group?
> >> opensocial-and-gadgets-spec@googlegroups.com.
> >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> >> opensocial-and-gadgets-spec+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
> >> For more options, visithttps://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
> > --
> > 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.
Ryan Baxter
Jan 31, 2013, 9:03:27 AM1/31/13
to opensocial-an...@googlegroups.com
I think this makes sense given the addition of the following group in 2.5
> >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> >> opensocial-and-gadgets-spec+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
> >> For more options, visithttps://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
> > --
> > 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
Laurent-Walter Goix
Feb 13, 2013, 4:41:16 AM2/13/13
to opensocial-an...@googlegroups.com
i just filed an issue [1] for this with the related proposed patch for 2.5.1. Note that i had to slightly update the text describing the connected field not to brek its original semantics (unless we want to do so)
[1] http://code.google.com/p/opensocial-resources/issues/detail?id=1333
walter
[1] http://code.google.com/p/opensocial-resources/issues/detail?id=1333
walter
Matthew Marum
Feb 13, 2013, 9:04:51 AM2/13/13
to opensocial-an...@googlegroups.com
Thanks Walter. I'll apply patch once I get a free moment.
Matt
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to opensocial-and-gadg...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/opensocial-and-gadgets-spec/-/fXp3fprpnOAJ.
Matthew Marum
Feb 15, 2013, 9:28:39 AM2/15/13
to opensocial-an...@googlegroups.com
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages