IRC log of swxg on 2009-11-03

Timestamps are in UTC.

17:13:15 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #swxg
17:13:15 [RRSAgent]
logging to
17:13:17 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs world
17:13:19 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be 7994
17:13:19 [Zakim]
I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot
17:13:20 [trackbot]
Meeting: Social Web Incubator Group Teleconference
17:13:20 [trackbot]
Date: 03 November 2009
17:13:52 [rigo]
use cases for social web from primelife:
17:14:03 [rigo]
17:14:05 [FabGandon]
Claudio Venezia introducing himself
17:14:19 [FabGandon]
Tom (?) from NTT communications
17:14:19 [DKA]
SWXG Wiki:
17:14:29 [FabGandon]
Adam Boyet from Boeing
17:14:40 [FabGandon]
Rigo from W3C dark side of the law
17:15:25 [martin]
martin has joined #swxg
17:16:22 [FabGandon]
Rigo presents Prime Life and mentions its use cases in particular the problem of taking down the walls of the walled gardens
17:16:34 [FabGandon]
"PrimeLife - Bringing sustainable privacy and identity management to future networks and services"
17:17:39 [FabGandon]
Adam presenting the Insight plaform internal tool of Boeing
17:17:55 [Adam]
17:18:11 [FabGandon]
Wagner talking head of W3C Brazil office
17:18:36 [hajons]
Håkan Jonsson (hajons), Sony Ericsson
17:18:41 [VagnerW3CBrasil]
Vagner Diniz is the head of W3C Brazil Office, joinning thhis session to know what is going on, particular interest in social web in mobile web
17:19:43 [VagnerW3CBrasil]
... and deployment of social web in W3C Brazil Office
17:19:45 [FabGandon]
Yoshiaki internal student of W3C/Keio Univ
17:20:05 [VagnerW3CBrasil]
17:20:40 [martin]
Martin Higham - Ocasta Labs
17:22:05 [rigo]
I presented Primelife use cases that _exclude_ tearing down the walls
17:22:49 [nord_c]
nord_c has joined #swxg
17:23:03 [FabGandon]
Christian de Sainte Marie (RIF WG) just joined as an observer.
17:23:52 [FabGandon]
Scribe: FabGandon
17:24:05 [rigo]
17:24:22 [rigo]
17:24:49 [FabGandon]
DKA flipping the agenda ; want to start with the use case documents.
17:25:28 [FabGandon]
User stories :
17:25:57 [DKA]
17:27:13 [DKA]
DanBri let me know if you want to skype in to our lovely session.
17:27:20 [FabGandon]
user stories are split e.g.
17:27:58 [danbri]
it's dinner time here soon unfortunately, perhaps I watch by IRC and jump in if something specific crops up?
17:28:15 [FabGandon]
17:28:25 [FabGandon]
17:29:21 [FabGandon]
latest template
17:29:42 [matt]
matt has joined #swxg
17:30:22 [FabGandon]
DKA : users Users stories are to create a picture of the social web for the users ; looking at it from a user experience
17:31:07 [FabGandon]
Rigo : to get momentum we need to also include the social web makers in the picture
17:31:45 [Kai]
Kai has joined #swxg
17:31:53 [FabGandon]
Fab : +1 for scenarios including all the people impacted by the stories
17:32:10 [FabGandon]
DKA : yep, service providers must be included too in the scenarios
17:33:23 [FabGandon]
Hakan: should we include third-party tools developers?
17:34:21 [FabGandon]
Rigo : PrimeLife developed Persona we can reuse.
17:34:58 [csma]
csma has joined #swxg
17:36:10 [FabGandon]
DKA: Actors: people (end-users), service providers, developers (3rd party)
17:36:27 [FabGandon]
DKA : looking at the use cases one by one.
17:36:42 [DKA]
17:37:48 [FabGandon]
DKA reading use case "Download your data"
17:38:52 [FabGandon]
DKA: we didn’t mention taking the data and uploading them in to another service ; should it be part of it?
17:39:50 [FabGandon]
FabGandon: is this part of another Use case ? if so is there an opportunity to merge them?
17:41:48 [FabGandon]
DKA : is this about having a unified API to the social web ?
17:42:33 [FabGandon]
FabGandon : API (such as in the CRUD scenario) + Format and model (as in FOAF + Relationship)
17:43:07 [FabGandon]
DKA : Difference between having interest in data and having the ownership of data.
17:43:07 [rigo]
the PrimeLife personae are published at
17:44:16 [FabGandon]
Rigo: data self determination says person data is mine ; every where except in the US
17:44:52 [FabGandon]
Information self determination :
17:45:54 [FabGandon]
DKA : Alice becomes a member of a social network and populate here profile ; Bob connects and see here phone number ; is the phone number Alice’s data or also Bob's ?
17:46:02 [FabGandon]
Rigo : Alice's
17:46:46 [FabGandon]
Rigo: if you have spread data you have a right to get it back, modify, etc.
17:47:25 [FabGandon]
Rigo : data is mine and have a say on this data
17:48:06 [FabGandon]
FabGandon: application of the CRUD scenario
17:48:29 [FabGandon]
DKA:  Data copied from Alice’s by Bob are still Alice’s data?
17:49:06 [FabGandon]
Rigo: if its only Bob, this is private data of Bob so there is nothing you canb do
17:50:17 [FabGandon]
... if the data are captured and kept by a Telco company then there is a problem ; no longer private copy of someone.
17:50:42 [FabGandon]
... in the case of Bob's copy there is no legal aspect to it.
17:51:03 [FabGandon]
... in the case of a Telco then there is a legal aspect to it.
17:51:52 [FabGandon]
17:53:18 [FabGandon]
Rigo : no privacy issue about this particular use case.
17:54:26 [rigo]
I need to go to a telco
17:55:18 [FabGandon]
DKA : data + policy
17:55:21 [FabGandon]
FabGandon : see also Intransitivity of Policies Applied to Social Network Data
17:56:09 [FabGandon]
Hakan: “downloading” does not describe the intent of the user.
17:56:55 [FabGandon]
Adam: the use case even talks about aggregating
17:57:13 [FabGandon]
Rigo: opportunistic use of data ?
17:59:30 [FabGandon]
DKA : Changing the title to "Reuse your data" quote "I have made the change because I am God"
18:00:11 [FabGandon]
Now talking about Drag and Drop
18:01:04 [FabGandon]
Ann : not really different from previous use case
18:01:28 [FabGandon]
Adam: it is about adding information.
18:03:05 [FabGandon]
Ann: another use case would be filling the blanks of some data I have.
18:04:10 [FabGandon]
... merging with data I have
18:04:43 [FabGandon]
Hakan: isn't it ease of use use case?
18:05:04 [FabGandon]
DKA : ok we should merge both use cases.
18:05:38 [FabGandon]
Liking to a remote Friend
18:07:01 [FabGandon]
Adam: connection request across networks.
18:09:09 [FabGandon]
Ann: “establishing a connection across networks” since the notion of request is dependent on some application.
18:09:33 [FabGandon]
Martin: follow and friendship are very different.
18:10:35 [FabGandon]
FabGandon : slash dot has "foes" that you won't find in Facebook.
18:12:39 [FabGandon]
Martin : the application you use to set the link will impose the type of link you set.
18:13:10 [lkagal]
lkagal has joined #swxg
18:13:20 [FabGandon]
DKA : different kinds of links.
18:13:42 [FabGandon]
Martin: social network B will impose its rules.
18:15:40 [FabGandon]
DKA: Social network B needs to know the request and decide to grant it or not.
18:17:34 [FabGandon]
Adam : Joe will thus appear as a User of social Network A although he does not use it?
18:17:51 [FabGandon]
Adam: the social networks are actors.
18:18:56 [FabGandon]
DKA editing the page as we speak.
18:21:47 [DKA]
18:24:28 [FabGandon]
DKA: missing use cases : foe, blocking, ...
18:24:59 [FabGandon]
Adam: current text is in conflict with post-condition
18:26:21 [FabGandon]
Hakan: post condition should state what the social networks A and B claim about Alice and Joe
18:26:57 [FabGandon]
DKA writing alternative paths.
18:27:33 [AnnB]
AnnB has joined #swxg
18:32:06 [FabGandon]
Adam: if I am on several network which one should deal with my request?
18:33:40 [FabGandon]
BREAK until 11AM
18:46:05 [mischat]
right i am to treck to wimbledom to lug boxes half away around london
18:46:11 [mischat]
18:46:14 [mischat]
wrong window:)
18:46:16 [mischat]
18:56:53 [danbri]
danbri has joined #swxg
18:57:49 [danbri]
btw if anyone is in Montreal, / statusnet are hiring ---
19:00:32 [FabGandon]
19:00:37 [FabGandon]
19:02:25 [csma]
csma has joined #swxg
19:03:18 [martin]
martin has joined #swxg
19:08:49 [rigo]
rigo has joined #swxg
19:11:53 [Adam]
dka: let me tell you where my cursor is ... alternative path 2
19:12:36 [Adam]
dka: alternate path 2 needs to be filled out a little bit more so that SN B needs to find out more about SN A
19:13:27 [Adam]
martin: Alice request on SN B to connect to Joe (who is on SN B), she provides her SN A identity when doing this
19:14:30 [Adam]
... SN A asks/confirms that she did make the connection request on SN B. Alice confirms with SN A. Joe appears on Alices connections in SN A
19:14:56 [Adam]
.... thats the basic course of events .... then there the case where SN B asks Joe if he wold like to connect to Alice as well
19:14:59 [claudio2]
claudio2 has joined #swxg
19:15:24 [nord_c]
nord_c has joined #swxg
19:17:11 [Adam]
rigo: the desire of the business model is that SN A typically wants to rope in the user from SN B
19:17:20 [Adam]
martin: thats not the desire from the user
19:17:32 [Adam]
dka: captured that as an alternative path #2
19:18:02 [Adam]
19:18:09 [Adam]
oops, wrong URL
19:18:18 [Adam]
19:20:01 [DKA]
19:20:19 [timbl]
timbl has joined #swxg
19:21:23 [VagnerW3CBrasil]
VagnerW3CBrasil has joined #swxg
19:21:23 [Adam]
dka: the thing that makes connecting connections across social networks (SN).. both SN providers need to be aware
19:22:47 [Adam]
dka: even in an asymetric relationship, there is some symetry that SN B needs to know about that request, even if it doesn't need to approve
19:22:58 [Adam]
.... thats the kind of leap we've been making
19:23:16 [Adam]
timbl: one way alice can tell sn b, or a third party could crawl the web
19:23:39 [Adam]
timbl: you could ask who's friending me, you could do that without coperation of the sites
19:24:49 [Adam]
dka: so you're saying another alternative path that SN B could only find out after the fact
19:25:18 [Adam]
timbl: another thing, you could send the requst by public email, alice could send it to bob's email
19:25:45 [timbl]
Currently for example has a reverse friend lookup serviuce over the FOAF graph
19:25:57 [Adam]
rigo: the notion of friend is a central one ..... in that the thing you attch to when you arrange a whole set of policies
19:26:59 [Adam]
.. the act of making friends means that Alice can now set an access policy, that means that it would have to go in to the access control system of SN A .. in this case SN A would have to allow Joe to see it
19:27:42 [Adam]
dka: SN B is able to request from SN A are there any pictures that i can display from alice
19:28:27 [Adam]
rigo: if you tear down the silo of the walls, then you have to make sure you see the notion of friends ... then SN A has to be able to limit
19:29:43 [Adam]
dka: if joe goes to SN A to see Alice profile he says let me see the pictures i can see, then SN A needs to be able to identify joe
19:31:50 [danbri]
(aside, when you say SN, ... increasingly it might just be 'site'?)
19:32:02 [Adam]
rigo: there are some providers that federate like plaxo like an rss feed ... but then how do you do access control
19:32:30 [tlr]
tlr has joined #swxg
19:32:32 [Adam]
dka: i think this means we need to add a use case taht i don't think is accounted for
19:32:37 [danbri]
re lookup services, also consider
19:32:43 [Adam]
... joe visits alices profile page on SN A
19:32:58 [danbri]
it is used by (and based on xfn and foaf)
19:34:36 [Adam]
timbl: there is some initial interaction that seems to be missing
19:34:51 [Kai]
Kai has joined #swxg
19:35:17 [Adam]
rigo: the reported in the social identity ???? they discussed unique identifiers and email address as the unique identifier
19:35:30 [Adam]
... they discussed web finger
19:35:47 [Adam]
Haken: its a discover step that we're missing
19:36:38 [oshani]
oshani has joined #swxg
19:36:44 [Adam]
dka: this use could be me following steven fry, he doesn't know who i am .... it's symetric in the sense that he knows that i'm following him
19:37:08 [Adam]
dka: in this case, joe (SN B) knows about the relationship
19:38:33 [Adam]
Ann: i wonder if the title is misleading
19:38:50 [Adam]
... maybe connection is misleading
19:39:09 [danbri]
danbri has joined #swxg
19:39:22 [Adam]
timbl: there could be lots of ways that alice knows about joe
19:39:51 [Adam]
.... could be email, or could have found each other ... eventually they establsh this connection
19:40:26 [Adam]
dka: in the course of events its implicit that if joe doesn't have alices identifier, by the time this is done joe definately does
19:40:42 [Adam]
dka: if alice makes a request, then joe knows she made the request
19:41:23 [Adam]
martin: there is a post condition that joe knows about alice
19:41:44 [timbl]
Missing step 2: Alice sees joe as an unconfirmed friend, Joe get extra rights to see Aice's stuff.
19:41:49 [Adam]
dka: right but is that true that we always want to have that, is it meaningful that alices identifier is not known by joe
19:42:26 [Adam]
rigo: typcially you have a public profile where it gives you a teaser to get you to join the SN
19:43:15 [Adam]
Ann: the profile could be obscure too
19:43:42 [Adam]
rigo: the web has unlimitted number of possibilities to discover people
19:44:21 [danbri]
danbri has joined #swxg
19:44:57 [Adam]
rigo: in this case there is no back identifier
19:45:54 [Adam]
timbl: step that is missing, after alice requests SN B (joe) .... when she stated joe is her friend, she see joe is listed as her friend. second part is if he ever comes in to facebook now, he gets rights to see more about alice
19:46:01 [timbl]
Missing step 2: Alice sees joe as an unconfirmed friend, Joe get extra rights to see Aice's stuff.
19:47:19 [Adam]
dka: adding that notion to the user scenario
19:47:54 [Adam]
refresh user scenario page
19:48:18 [Adam]
19:48:22 [oshani]
19:48:41 [Adam]
dka: does that mean we should delete the Accepting a Friend use case
19:49:15 [danbri]
(another aside from me - I hope you can talk a bit about lists/groups, eg. the recent twitter 'list' feature is making quite a stir... and have groups)
19:49:27 [Adam]
martin: its seems to be talking about http ... low level stop
19:49:44 [Adam]
Ann: seems that there are components of accepting and rejecting that might be good to keep separate
19:51:09 [Adam]
dka: seems that rejecting is a different alternative path and that blocking may be a separate use case
19:51:23 [Adam]
FabGandon: maybe the blocking could be part of the CRUD one
19:52:11 [Adam]
Ann: aspect of block that you just block people you don't know but then the case about a stalker, you are being a stalked
19:53:08 [Adam]
dka: editing wiki, strying to add blocking
19:53:46 [Adam]
.. and then lets talk about that ... i think the relationship is binary but the meta-information is on top of that
19:54:05 [AnnB]
s/aspect of block/one aspect of block/
19:54:14 [Adam]
timbl: thats how it is on facebook, but they've had to start adding classification to it
19:54:43 [AnnB]
s/being a stalked/being stalked and want to block that person/
19:54:52 [Adam]
... but whether i classify you as a friend or a foe, is not visible to you
19:55:17 [Adam]
dka: i still like thats classifications of your social graph
19:55:28 [Adam]
... i have linkage but i hang metadata off of that linkage
19:55:52 [Adam]
Hayen: but do you have to accept to be a foe
19:56:14 [danbri]
all the services will add private and public categories, i'm sure of it...
19:56:18 [Adam]
19:56:49 [Adam]
dka: is there a case where anything more than the binary connection is a personal matter
19:57:15 [hajons]
Håkan = hajons
19:57:20 [Adam]
19:59:34 [Adam]
dka: if listing that we, individually say we are w3c colleagues that doesn't mean as much as if we both agree to say that. there additional value in that
20:00:42 [danbri]
here's an example i started btw, putting people into groups ---
20:00:58 [Adam]
Ann: what if you want to remove / revoke the relationship
20:01:15 [tlr]
tlr has joined #swxg
20:01:30 [Adam]
martin: establishing the connection and then another could be managing the connection
20:02:32 [Adam]
dka: now we have establishing, managing, and blocking
20:03:33 [Adam]
Håkan: I'm thinking about the metadata. we're talking about establishing the relationship ... what about the rules of the relationship
20:04:16 [Adam]
dka: if SN A really didn't know about SN B, then somehow SN A would have to allow Alice to agree to SN B term and conditions
20:04:58 [Adam]
martin: with all the content is pushed out to the network ... so alice wouldn't have to agree to SN B terms and conditions cause she's not creating any content on SN B
20:05:28 [Adam]
Håkan: providing some type of informationa bout the type of relation since there are no standards for this
20:05:45 [Adam]
.... but there is no way for SN B to consider different types of relationships
20:05:51 [danbri]
danbri has joined #swxg
20:05:56 [Adam]
... it can't apply policies
20:06:22 [Adam]
claudio: later on in the privacy section of the use cases, there are some things about different types of identities
20:07:04 [Adam]
... right now we are decoupling the identify from the SN account. what happens if we manage the different relationship profiles with these different identities ... are we over complicating the sitation
20:07:11 [Adam]
20:07:58 [Adam]
dka: i think one of the preconditions is that SN A has already verified the identity of Alice
20:08:15 [Adam]
rigo: don't even get in to the game of determinging what an identity is
20:08:56 [AnnB]
20:08:59 [Adam]
... we hit that problem in many areas .... now more than 6 years of research in this areas is a fan of multiple identities
20:09:26 [Adam]
... do not try to identify a physical natural person
20:10:05 [Adam]
... here we shouldn't think about identifying a natural person but should take some kind of virtual identity and person can have more than one
20:10:17 [AnnB]
20:10:21 [Adam]
dka: agree we don't want to get in to solving the identity problem
20:10:28 [tlr_]
tlr_ has joined #swxg
20:11:22 [rigo]
20:11:29 [rigo]
20:12:22 [rigo]
dka: adding to preconditions that SN A has added Alice as an identiy
20:12:56 [rigo]
tbl: lots of personae around, some people can correlate others don't
20:13:24 [danbri]
rrsagent, pointer?
20:13:24 [RRSAgent]
20:13:32 [rigo]
dka: one use case missing, relationship between different profiles to say "this is me"
20:13:47 [rigo] a kind of managing personae idea
20:14:01 [rigo]
...actually there is no way to say that "this is me"
20:14:27 [danbri]
re this is me, XFN handles that very concisely: rel=me
20:14:30 [tlr]
tlr has joined #swxg
20:14:39 [danbri]
i've been looking at foaf/xfn integration - via groups:
20:14:52 [danbri]
here's an example i started btw, putting people into groups --- ... also as a plan for bridging foaf with xfn
20:15:10 [rigo]
...use case is e.g. to say to my phone that all of those different entries is me
20:15:51 [rigo]
CSM: is that related to the use case this morning?
20:15:55 [rigo]
20:16:09 [rigo]
??: can do the 'me' thing
20:16:50 [hajons]
?? = Håkan = hajons
20:17:18 [AnnB]
also, TBL said FOAF can identify "me"
20:17:42 [danbri]
FOAF has a few tricks for figuring out identity from descriptions (plus simple use of URIs and owl:sameAs)
20:19:22 [hajons]
on the me rel tag:
20:21:38 [Adam]
lots of discussion on how linking or saying this is me can cause concerns
20:23:41 [rigo]
rw: don't absolute IDs, just use relative identies wherever you find them
20:23:42 [AnnB]
tlr: the "me" relationship might help one SN discover info from "me" in another SN
20:23:50 [rigo]
tlr: ...dka
20:23:54 [rigo]
20:24:12 [rigo]
dka: how to see information flow between networks
20:24:36 [rigo] this is better compared to the current situation
20:25:18 [rigo]
...bad scenario: how to manage all fragmentation
20:27:03 [rigo]
HJ: want to link my professional profiles together and my private, but independent from each other
20:29:01 [nord_c]
nord_c has joined #swxg
20:29:15 [rigo]
20:30:20 [DKA]
20:30:22 [rigo]
dka: managing connections, we haven't anything yet
20:31:13 [rigo]
....if Alice and Joe have connected, SN A and SN B already know about each other
20:31:21 [rigo]
tbl: reciprocal?
20:31:51 [rigo]
dka: even in asymetric relations, a and b have to know each other
20:32:06 [rigo]
20:33:00 [rigo]
dka: basic connection unless Bob has to agree
20:33:42 [rigo]
hj: connection only established after permission
20:34:02 [rigo]
MH: we are "managing"
20:34:22 [rigo]
HJ: we should include the possibility to reject a relation
20:34:52 [rigo]
20:35:33 [rigo]
CV: friend only discussion on business thinks
20:35:52 [rigo]
...normally you don't talk about nature of relations
20:36:14 [rigo]
HJ: not saying that we need always type of relation, but we should allow for it
20:36:40 [rigo]
dka: this can be serialized..
20:36:57 [rigo]
...if connection is established, the connection is categorized..
20:37:25 [rigo]
HJ: this is only about current things, not how this should be in the future
20:37:45 [rigo]
AB: friends that you don't care about
20:38:02 [rigo]
MH: there may be a level of control
20:38:17 [rigo]
AB: profile information is something that you totally control
20:39:08 [rigo]
...not true in a corporation environment, no choice, company policy. can't force people to put picture
20:40:29 [rigo]
rw: best practices document for corporate environment may be interesting
20:40:58 [rigo]
MH: establish connection with your business network, it is not only you that determines
20:41:08 [rigo]
AB: they struggle already with it
20:41:41 [rigo]
...already big warnings about not giving names
20:41:54 [rigo]
...most worried about phishing attacks
20:42:02 [hhalpin]
hhalpin has joined #swxg
20:42:18 [rigo]
DKA: not talking about your secret company projects ...
20:42:26 [hhalpin]
hey sorry I'm late
20:42:35 [rigo]
dka: capture some stuff on enterprise
20:42:44 [hhalpin]
how is the meeting going?
20:42:59 [rigo]
FG: it would be good to have use cases from inside big corp viewpoint
20:43:17 [rigo] would be 5.14
20:43:29 [hhalpin]
Just ping me if you need any help, otherwise I'll monitor in and out via IRC.
20:43:29 [rigo]
...another one on the mailing list
20:43:59 [rigo]
AB: different in business intelligence, here rather somebody from inside the corp communicating outside corp
20:44:23 [rigo]
FG: we do not capture use of social networks inside corp
20:44:36 [rigo]
...on the intranet
20:44:43 [DKA]
ACTION: Adam to write a use case about business social networks - on an intranet - e.g. when ownership or editorship of certain parts of your profile are not under the user's control.
20:44:43 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-104 - Write a use case about business social networks - on an intranet - e.g. when ownership or editorship of certain parts of your profile are not under the user's control. [on Adam Boyet - due 2009-11-10].
20:46:44 [rigo]
RW: in corp environment, linking several instances of SN needs super social network with ID
20:47:46 [mischat]
mischat has joined #swxg
20:47:47 [rigo]
20:47:49 [rigo]
20:48:11 [rigo]
dka: do we need to have specific relationship vocab
20:48:23 [rigo]
FG: recategorizing existing relation
20:49:51 [harryhalpin]
harryhalpin has joined #swxg
20:51:08 [rigo]
Adam: categorization, should Bob be aware.
20:51:25 [rigo]
dka: different from requesting friendship to share information
20:51:40 [rigo]
...or some additional functionality
20:51:54 [rigo]
tbl: categorization of relation and categorization of persons
20:52:58 [rigo]
...facebook makes classes, related to me, "my friends". Box of students, want to be able to treat them the same as the list of students that MIT has published
20:53:02 [harryhalpin]
to ask a quick off topic question in irc, any idea what happened to henry story? does he need any help, and is there anything I can do?
20:53:11 [rigo]
...or class of people that have attended a certain conference
20:53:35 [rigo]
...some will be public, some private. Notion of Group is very general
20:54:14 [rigo]
FG: case: party with all colleagues except one... intersection, challenge to do that ergonomically
20:54:36 [rigo]
tbl: all my friends except this persons is difficult
20:54:58 [rigo]
AB: you have the list of friends, then you can unclick the preselected,
20:55:03 [rigo]
tbl: so procedural?
20:55:07 [rigo]
AB: yes
20:55:35 [rigo]
Adam: Tbl wants to use the groups consistently across different groups
20:55:53 [rigo]
tbl: to every relation, there is a class
20:56:22 [rigo]
MH: does this have an impact on later interconnect? We should focus on those
20:56:52 [danbri]
are you talking about what i think you're talking about?
20:57:04 [danbri]
groups/lists vs relations?
20:57:20 [harryhalpin]
sounds like rdf domain and range...but not *required* class? Open world or closed world?
20:57:22 [Adam]
yeah, kind of :)
20:57:24 [danbri]
my current example is
20:57:27 [danbri]
#danbri :homepage <">>; :openid <>; :made #danbri-wouldliketoknowbetter .
20:57:28 [danbri]
#danbri-wouldliketoknowbetter a :Group;
20:57:29 [danbri]
:member [ a :Person;
20:57:31 [danbri]
:homepage <>;
20:57:33 [danbri]
:account <> ] .
20:57:51 [danbri]
... but not clear how much logic to put into Group versus simply using OWL and subclasses of Person
20:58:41 [oshani]
oshani has joined #swxg
21:00:18 [rigo]
21:00:19 [Adam]
out to lunch all
21:00:49 [FabGandon]
FabGandon has left #swxg
21:00:57 [rigo]
rrsagent, please draft minutes
21:00:57 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate rigo
21:14:55 [tlr]
tlr has joined #swxg
21:20:47 [Kai]
Kai has joined #swxg
21:48:03 [nord_c]
nord_c has joined #swxg
21:58:57 [danbri]
danbri has joined #swxg
22:04:03 [VagnerW3CBrasil]
VagnerW3CBrasil has joined #swxg
22:04:40 [martin]
martin has joined #swxg
22:07:01 [FabGandon]
FabGandon has joined #swxg
22:07:47 [Adam]
Adam has joined #swxg
22:10:33 [timbl]
timbl has joined #swxg
22:11:29 [martin]
Restarting. Going to continue with Use Cases and not follow the agenda
22:11:43 [DKA]
DKA has joined #swxg
22:12:13 [FabGandon]
22:12:20 [Adam]
Scribe martin
22:12:22 [FabGandon]
22:12:29 [Adam]
ScribeNick martin
22:12:32 [DKA]
22:13:33 [rlewis3]
rlewis3 has joined #swxg
22:13:42 [claudio]
claudio has joined #swxg
22:13:53 [FabGandon]
22:15:22 [martin]
DA: Picking up with Managing an existing connection
22:19:50 [claudo]
claudo has joined #swxg
22:20:56 [martin]
MH: Either participant can act on an existing relationship
22:21:32 [martin]
Intros from new attendees
22:23:39 [martin]
DA: Requests to change can be negotiated, declined or ignored
22:24:20 [martin]
Adam: Does anywhere have these alternatives today
22:24:50 [martin]
HJ: Says Facebook does
22:26:09 [martin]
DA: Even if it doesnt happen now then if it makes sense in the distributed model...
22:27:24 [martin]
DA: LinkedIn sort of categorises relationship after they are established
22:28:25 [martin]
HJ: Polite blocking on IM
22:30:08 [martin]
DA: Asking HJ to add a link in the wiki
22:32:36 [hajons]
polite blocking in SIP: RFC 3856, RFC 2779
22:32:55 [martin]
DKA: If there is no reciprocal relationship what impact is there if Alice recategorises it from her SN
22:33:46 [yfukami]
yfukami has joined #swxg
22:34:29 [martin]
DKA: Bob is not informed
22:34:39 [DKA]
22:35:26 [FabGandon]
example of mutual and non mutual relationships on
22:36:33 [martin]
claudo: Why does it need to be explicit that Bob isnt informed?
22:39:21 [martin]
martin: We shouldn't be proscriptive about behaviour. Bob may be informed... not is
22:39:31 [tlr_]
tlr_ has joined #swxg
22:40:30 [martin]
hajons: Alice may ant to request a better relationship
22:40:39 [martin]
22:42:03 [martin]
hajons: We are making assumptions about the default relationship
22:44:26 [martin]
DKA: Using Dopplr to explain his view.
22:44:57 [timbl]
timbl has joined #swxg
22:45:00 [martin]
DKA: We are decorating the connection
22:45:44 [martin]
Adam: We must allow the public and private categorisation
22:47:53 [martin]
DKA: An alternative path maybe that this cateogorisation is happening with a connection
22:48:52 [martin]
DKA: This should be on the previous use case
22:50:10 [martin]
AnnB: Relationships vary over time
22:51:20 [martin]
just say rfc286 in the wiki and the link was automatically added
22:51:34 [Adam]
22:52:07 [martin]
kai: Twitter is not reciprocal.
22:52:48 [martin]
DKA: Follow is still reciprocal not identical. The followee can see the connection
22:52:55 [FabGandon]
extract from slash dot : "When you select someone as a friend, it makes you that users fan. (...) Freaks work similar to fans, except they are people who have chosen you as their foes. Users who have chosen you as a foe are listed in your freaks list."
22:53:35 [Adam]
22:55:53 [martin]
kai: draws diagram - not transcribing it
22:58:54 [martin]
DKA: You can have many relationships to one person
23:03:19 [martin]
claudo: issue with someone giving away group permissions
23:03:41 [AnnB]
23:04:14 [martin]
DKA: relationships should be exportable
23:06:18 [martin]
timbl: Groups need to hosted somewhere
23:07:35 [martin]
FabGardon: Should restrict to lists at this time
23:10:09 [FabGandon]
groups can be seen as classes and thus defined in extension (the closed set of all members) or in intension (the definition of membership e.g. every one linked to me through a family relationship or a sub-type of this relationship)
23:10:38 [FabGandon]
for the time being we could focus on extensional definitions indeed.
23:10:45 [martin]
AnnB: Are relationships about trust?
23:11:57 [martin]
DKA: In Aus Facebook was defined as a legal source for a subpoena
23:12:34 [DKA]
23:13:24 [martin]
23:15:19 [martin]
lkagal: XDM for defining groups
23:16:04 [tlr]
tlr has joined #swxg
23:16:07 [martin]
rigo: What relationship between xdm and vcard
23:16:39 [martin]
lkagal: None. OMA behind xdm. Protocols defined by ITF
23:17:21 [hajons]
23:17:24 [FabGandon]
this XDM ?
23:17:41 [rigo]
rigo has joined #swxg
23:18:07 [hajons]
23:18:09 [martin]
adam: Need to make it clear that we are talking categories not category
23:20:18 [FabGandon]
DKA: do we need a user story on creating a group?
23:23:51 [AnnB]
Rigo: look at NNTP for ideas about groups
23:31:16 [tlr]
tlr has joined #swxg
23:33:53 [claudo]
CRUD operations over data
23:35:59 [claudo]
CRUD operations are related to access control mechanisms
23:40:56 [Adam]
Scribe claudo
23:41:02 [Adam]
ScribeNick claudo
23:41:07 [claudo]
DKA: CRUD operations have to be placed in ad hoc section
23:41:13 [Adam]
23:41:24 [Adam]
23:42:04 [claudo]
Fabien: Mis-tweeting the news is a critical use case, if someone wants to remove inconvenient posts
23:44:42 [claudo]
DKA: document takedowns
23:45:28 [claudo]
rigo: are introducing the delete operation on the web?