[foaf-protocols] FOAF Like
kidehen at openlinksw.com
Mon Sep 27 18:35:23 CEST 2010
On 9/27/10 11:46 AM, Henry Story wrote:
> On 27 Sep 2010, at 16:53, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>> On 9/27/10 10:39 AM, Henry Story wrote:
>>> On 27 Sep 2010, at 16:30, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
>>>> I counted last night about 10 different 'groups' working on
>>>> interoperabile WebID app ... I think by the end of the year we'll have
>>>> the first wave of apps that can really the diverse potential of the
>>>> data web.
>>> Very nice.
>>> Btw, I think that icons should be very simple. So that was my only
>>> issue with yours, is it brings too much I think together.
>>> For branding WebID only needs branding so we can get into developers
>>> minds, so they can recognise it, speak of it, and develop it with friends.
>>> As far as end users, I think it's the kind of technology that may not in
>>> the end have a brand. We don't really want to add to the NASCAR problem.
>>> We want to solve it. :-)
>> Yes, you solve NASCAR by getting people to remember what "Identity" is about.
>> The InterWeb has always had an "Identity" problem, so lets develop WebID branding around its ability to address all the ill effects of the aforementioned anomaly.
>> The current trend of enhancing old UNIX protocols with WebFinger and WebID is a very powerful approach to this. Trouble is that we need a place to stimulate these efforts -- it can't be the same place where the protocol is being developed.
>> Wondering how many have played with the Webfinger enhanced variant of Finger on Mac OS X or Linux, for instance?
> It's difficult to keep up with everything going on.
> I hear your request for more organisation and more
> outward visibility etc... That has to be done well and is part of our attempt
> to get more into a standards process. I believe the W3C may be making membership in
> the W3C easier for the Federated Social Web people. (not sure why they call it Federated...)
> So that is something to track.
> For the moment it is good that we have one active list, better than many nearly dead ones.
> Here is the activity of the foaf lists over the years
> I just hope people don't think that because there is WebID and foaf that there
> is divergence on where these both are going. They are complimentary and play very
> well together :-)
Yes, they do, but herein also lies the problem. For Web App. developers
FOAF also means "that semantic web thing we don't understand....". Hence
the suggestion to split the discussion spaces across protocol
development and application development.
Projects like Diaspora should really be centered around WebID. Instead,
I sense they are on a strange odyssey they will include a lot of
reinvention etc.. :-(
>> Kingsley Idehen
>> President& CEO
>> OpenLink Software
> Social Web Architect
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the foaf-protocols