[Freedombox-discuss] Working with W3C Federated Social Web

[Melvin Carvalho]

On 13 July 2011 20:32, ya knygar <knygar at gmail.com> wrote:
> W3C FSW has -  not only OStatus:
> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/federatedsocialweb/wiki/Protocols
> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/socialweb/wiki/FederatedSocialWebCharter
> nor - had - previous SW incubator -
> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/socialweb/XGR-socialweb/
>
> i think - if something isn't mentioned that's because - there wasn't
> the move from developers itself
> like - http://indiewebcamp.com/undiscussed
>
> and, i haven't seen no emphasis on something except
> if one of the members, like StatusNet could be  the most active on wiki,
> because they have real money-driven interest, i think.
>
> obviously - there are broader group, than represented in FSW incubator
> for example - d-cent.org/wiki
> and http://we-need-a-free-and-open-social-network.wikispaces.com/
> but i'm sure - FSW should be the base for discussion !between all
> these initiatives,
> if we want the real Federation to happen.
>
> i am as PR of http://PyOfWave.info project, and, PyOfWave as a member
> among of 4+ (not naming Apache Wave now) Independent Wave-alike
> networks, going partly, with existing protocols, partly with invented
> schemes.
>
> But - we are aimed for FSW and - not because we like FSW as the place
> for discussion - mailing lists aren't nice
> and minute chat's  are just fun.
>
> But - because it's only - obvious place where such a Federation, being
> built with Privacy and Security
> as the corner stones  - would, likely to start on.
> I mean - not on *our* or *yours* lists, forums or pads, even if we
> like them, but there on FSW infrastructure, where people could work
> together on the most *real* Federated Social Web.
>
> We, as XCCC networks have the most difficult objectives among social
> networks - to federate with working
> https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Operational_transformation
> or, even, next gen of it, however we are still trying to make it with
> most of FSW participants, so it could be called Web Federation!
>
> If we, like we did already, would work independently, only on our own
> - we'll have   http://we-need-a-free-and-open-social-network.wikispaces.com/
> variety lists without real federation for years if ever, given that
> both FB and G+ have and would have more of standards under the hoods,
> we shouldn't make just another type of federation - because it suits
> our base.
> Here is a man - proposing wait for another G+ standards:
> http://mattblr.tumblr.com/post/7149479901/google-facebook-federated-social-network-2
>
> i can't agree with that situation either, as if ever we could - it's
> now - we could show the Google and Facebook that - it's Them - who
> need to think how to federate with all the coming FSW world, not us.
> It's them  - who need to open their data for Independent real-time
> search, for Independent Web Apps etc.
>
> FreedomBox Federation could tidily collaborate with existing -
> professional initiatives under existing professional institutions like
> W3C or just start another one Federated Group, i think - you should
> decide.

Freedombox is a bigger project than a Web project, but hopefully it
will leverage the Web aspect for its users, as much as possible.

W3C I'm would be happy to help, incubate, or work with web oriented
federation, especially if it leads to implementations.

>
> _______________________________________________
> Freedombox-discuss mailing list
> Freedombox-discuss at lists.alioth.debian.org
> http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/freedombox-discuss
>