[foaf-protocols] FOAF Like

Melvin Carvalho melvincarvalho at gmail.com
Mon Sep 27 19:14:54 CEST 2010


On 27 September 2010 18:35, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen at openlinksw.com> wrote:
> 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.

Yeah, I know what you mean ... I actually prefer to use the term
"HTML5" to those folks, and it seems easier to take in.

>
> 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
>
> Henry
>
>
>
> --
>
> Regards,
>
> Kingsley Idehen	
> President & CEO
> OpenLink Software
> Web:
> http://www.openlinksw.com
>
> Social Web Architect
> http://bblfish.net/
>
>
>
> --
>
> Regards,
>
> Kingsley Idehen	
> President & CEO
> OpenLink Software
> Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
> Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
> Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen
>
>
>
>
>


More information about the foaf-protocols mailing list