Social Web Incubator Group Teleconference -- 20 Jan 2010

<trackbot> Date: 20 January 2010

<cperey> I'm having difficulty reaching the Zakim conf bridge

I think we need to get Zakim to set up a termporary code for us?

<renato> me to

something like "zakim, room for 15"?

<hhalpin> hey, I sent an e-mail to adminreq

<cperey> zakim aaaa is me

<hhalpin> \me FYI people, due to scheduling bit, conference code is 26631

Can anyone else who plans to join the call please do so on the newly minter Zakim code, 26631 please?

<cperey> can person typing mute themselves, please?

<scribe> Scribe: Dan

<cperey> yes

<scribe> ScribeNick: DKA

<cperey> noisy breathing?

Convene SWXG WG meeting of 2010-01-20T21:00Z

<hhalpin> PROPOSED: to approve SWXG WG Weekly -- 13th January 2010 as a true record

<hhalpin> http://www.w3.org/2010/01/13-swxg-minutes.html

<hhalpin> ACCEPT: to approve SWXG WG Weekly -- 13th January 2010 as a true record

hhalpin: Next week, guest speaker talking about Salmon protocol.

<hhalpin> ACCEPTED: to meet again Wed. Jan 27th

RESOLUTION: Accept last week's minutes.

Action Reminders

<hhalpin> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/socialweb/weekly-agenda.html

hhalpin: please people - look at your actions and update the group if anything has happened with your actions!

<hhalpin> ACTION [DONE]: hhalpin to doodle over XG vs IG

<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - [DONE]

<hhalpin> ACTION: [DONE] hhalpin to doodle over XG vs IG [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/01/20-swxg-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - [DONE]

<hhalpin> ACTION: [DONE] hhalpin to doodle over XG vs IG [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/01/20-swxg-minutes.html#action02]

Christine, Renato, and Kaliya on Social Web Frameworks

<hhalpin> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/socialweb/wiki/SocialWebFrameworks

hhalpin: danbri has reignighted the w3c widgets - open social widgets discussion. That should be happening on a future xg call.

<hhalpin> http://wiki.idcommons.net/Lexicon

<hhalpin> http://m2bp.pbworks.com/

hhalpin: Let's go through these documents and find some consistency. My starter is to adopt the id commons terminology and to see how far we are on general principles.

<hhalpin> we'll try to get chris saad on the phone later to compare/contrast this with christine and renato's document

High level principles from Anita: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-socialweb/2010Jan/0019.html

cperey: I want to introduce rentato and my document and then discuss how to proceed on today's call

Great!

<hhalpin> fine with me

<hhalpin> also we should try to talk about making meeting time more convenient for west coast people, i'll take an action for a doodle poll on this.

rentato: quick background - Christine and I were talking about some of the topics discussed in the XG and we decided to document "e.g. we think when we say distributed profiles we mean this" --

renato: the document is our first attempt and we are now exposing it to the wider group and filling the holes we haven't covered.

<cperey> this is information we want to add to the introduction of the document

<cperey> useful for several communities

renato: target audience - this audience [the xg] and technical people but also "high-end" social web users and useful for standards bodies and communities to understand.

<cperey> not going into deep, deep terminology

renato: useful for a broad range of communities

cperey: one thing that came to light this morning in discussion with ? - when we were working on this we were talking about concepts being discussed by people as lay people, but many of these concepts have only now become "lay people" topics where previously they were the domain of specialists. [e.g. social graph]
... this is a key point in where the lexicon came from

renato: if you look in our document, the terminology section, we wanted to define these up front because we use them later int he document...
... we've come with some ideas already to modify our list. We would like to add another column, mapping to other communities including id commons.

<hhalpin> are there any other groups with well-defined lexicons?

<cperey> but we want to point out that some concepts/terms are specific to Social Web

<hhalpin> the word "agent" comes in useful here

http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/socialweb/wiki/SocialWebFrameworks#The_Terminology

<cperey> and the ID commons calls it a "digital subject"

renato: "social web user" - we were thinking of individuals although we need to talk about organisations as well...

<cperey> highly charged for so many people

<hhalpin> agent isn't necessarily digital though.

<hhalpin> profile =? digital identity

renato: "identity" - this is an overloaded term, but we need a term to describe a collection of profiles, the idea that a person has multiple profiles or personas as ID commons calls them.

<cperey> the aggregation of all your profiles

<cperey> seen only by the person (Social WEb user)

Agree using the word "identity" might not be best -- maybe "digital identity."

renato: So looking for suggestions.

hhalpin: my comment - profile maps onto ID commons "digital identity" - what about re-using the ID commons terms?

<hhalpin> kaliya talking

<hhalpin> aggregate set of all profiles?

Kaliya: is "identity" an "aggregate set of all profiles" - something more descriptive.

<cperey> there isn't (in the ID commons lexicon) something which matches up with the term we have called Identity

Kaliya: Thought about making a longer descriptive way to communicate that.

<cperey> there is a "gap" in both ID commons and Social Web vocabulary

<yoshiaki> +q

renato: yes "identity" as a term probably overloaded.

<hhalpin> Identity => "The unique single identity of a Social Web User, . A user has one and only one unique conceptual identity which contains all the information about the user."

<hhalpin> It seems to be "total identity" or "aggregate identity" to me.

yoshiaki: In Japan many people use more than one identity, one name, such as pseudonom. So many cases were it is not adequate to use a single profile.

renato: in our terminology we would say that people have multiple profiles or personas. That collection of profiles represents you as a single person somehow.

<hhalpin> we could start using trackbot's issue tracker :)

Dan: let's bookmark this and use the term "collection of profiles" for now maybe...

<hhalpin> ISSUE: Replace term "identity" with "aggregate identity" or something more precise

<trackbot> Created ISSUE-2 - Replace term "identity" with "aggregate identity" or something more precise ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/socialweb/track/issues/2/edit .

<Yuk> sorry i don't have a phone now. but seems this definition of identity is similar to social web user

cperey: profiles are composed of attributes or properties - one of the reasons we identified these attributes is that one of the key notions in the paper is that of a "distributed property/profile" - we often use in our conversation the word "distributed" and that needs clarification.
... one reason for distributed properties is that the user is occupying more than one social application. These concepts are central to the social web.

<hhalpin> in ID common lexicon, profile =? digital identity

cperey: the "social application" is kind of synonymous to a social network today.

<hhalpin> correct?

cperey: "profile association", "social connection", "social obligation" and "social interaction"

<Zakim> DKA, you wanted to comment on "social obligation"

<hhalpin> ISSUE: look for another word besides obligation

<trackbot> Created ISSUE-3 - Look for another word besides obligation ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/socialweb/track/issues/3/edit .

In http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/socialweb/wiki/UserStories we talked about establishing connections and managing "relationships"

<hhalpin> Although we need the notes DKA :)

<cperey> yeah!

<cperey> agree with what you just said, Dan

<cperey> connection doesn't make any sense without a relationship

<cperey> this is what we are trying to express with these different shapes of BLUE lines in the figures

<cperey> there are different types of connections

<cperey> could be uni-directional or bi-directional

Dan: I suggest that a connection without a relationship (obligation in your document) is meaningless. Even a follow relationship is a relationship. So connection is important to capture but doesn't a connection need at least one "relationship"?

<hhalpin> yep context is a tricky one.

<hhalpin> http://ftp.cs.toronto.edu/pub/gh/Hirst-CICLing-2000.pdf

cperey: possibly - this is also missing some terms that we use in the document. We don't define "context" and we don't define "social graph."

<hhalpin> that above URI is for a paper that from an AI perspective notes a number of different usages of word "context"

<hhalpin> but then does call it a "spurious concept"

cperey: if you skip down a few sections we've dedicated some thinking to that - we feel this group would be an excellent place to make some improvements to the terminology around social graph.

<melvster> re: social graph i think it was first popularized here by bradfitz following discussions on 'social network portability' http://bradfitz.com/social-graph-problem/

renato: quick comment to Dan on social connection / relationship: what we're trying to say is that you make these connections in the context of a social application and that's how you determine what the types of relationships are. So relationships are in the context of a social application...

<cperey> yes, but this is now a docment which has aged

<cperey> we need to work on a "modern" and flexible and widely used definition of social graph

<melvster> +1 property

renato: also - whether to use "property" and "attribute" - ID commons uses attribute.

<melvster> property is rdf too

<cperey> yes, that's exactly one of its problems (problem with the term property)

<cperey> is that it is deeply associated with Semantic web thinking

hhalpin: The reason I think some people would want to use Property is that this is used in semweb world. If ID commons is using "attribue" it might be better to use what ID commons is using. Also wondering - wondering about the difference between profiles and digital identity.

<hhalpin> any preference?

<hhalpin> "profile" I guess was popularized by Facebook

<renato> attribute is ok (and we can map to rdf:property)

<hhalpin> "persona profile"?

Kaliya: When our community were developing our lexicon some of these things weren't out there. I like "persona" because it's clear it might not be tied back to the real name of the person.

<hhalpin> ISSUE: profile vs. persona vs. digital identity

<trackbot> Created ISSUE-4 - Profile vs. persona vs. digital identity ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/socialweb/track/issues/4/edit .

<hhalpin> different levels of framework?

<cperey> harmonizing vocabularies

<cperey> this is about Social Web, not necessarily rdf

Dan: agree to use "attribute" if possible.

renato: first diagram - social identity - in this case we have a single person or single identity which has multiple profiles. Those profiles could be overlaping - some of the properties re-used. Then a web user is saying they are joining a number of social applications. They're then using one of the profiles in the context of that social app and then using other profiles for other apps.

<cperey> not single application

<cperey> a profile could be "Shared"

<cperey> by multiple social applications

Dan: a single profile could be relevant to multiple applications?

renato: yes.

<yoshiaki> +q

renato: another extension was distributed social profile - your profile should know how to retrieve and access those properties from around the web.

<Zakim> DKA, you wanted to wonder if our "property" is a direct 121 match with ID commons "attribute"

<cperey> Last FM user can profile a user on the basis of playlist

yoshiaki: in last.fm, user can profile other users and use them for their playlist or blacklist [so this is another kind of profile]

<cperey> profile must be flexible enough to adapt

renato: using profile as a term - to profile someone -
... the actual profiling is something we capture in the "system & framework " section - analytics section.
... I think we are using profile as a noun not as a verb.
... going on to "social graph" - we wanted to show in diagram #3 - we tried to show without getting too complex - what we wanted to show is one user is using the same profile across different applications and connections happen between profiles.

<melvster> btw, the term social graph is also described here in Tim BL's essay: http://dig.csail.mit.edu/breadcrumbs/node/215

renato: we went on to talk about frameworks.
... how we think all these different frameworks could work together.
... each of these frameworks have different services in them...
... what other frameworks would be useful to include in the diagram?

<hhalpin> definitely useful, really like the frameworks bit

renato: feedback?

<MacTed> drats. timing fail. guess I'll read the minutes.

<hhalpin> why not just use wiki?

cperey: for people who have the time - using the method that Kaliya used - marking up a [deleted] document with track changes - might be an option to do this.

renato: the only thing about using the wiki is that you don't see it in front of you like track changes...

<cperey> I propose that we attach a text version of the file to the wiki page

<cperey> a "Word" version of the document (which can be edited/commented) more freely

<hhalpin> http://wiki.idcommons.net/Persona

<hhalpin> [person name]

hhalpin: to clarify the wiki - it's only changeable by those with a w3c account - all changes are tracked - if you look at the ID commons wiki you can see how different people talk in the wiki...

<cperey> that was only added after an editor went through the process of synthesizing wide inputs

<cperey> then you can use some manual "markings"

<cperey> to note where you added/change the words

hhalpin: I'm happy for people to communicate however they best work - I don't use [deleted] change tracking but people could do that when expressing private thought. We could keep multiple versions...

<renato> sorry calling back in.....

Dan: I suggest it's somewhat about comfort level with a tool...

<hhalpin> happy to sit down with christine and renato and show them how to use wiki, but lots of people can't do "track changes" in Word doc.

<hhalpin> there's lots of options, including two separate wiki pages

<cperey> periodic updates to the HTML version based on inputs/comments from community

<hhalpin> one with edits and another with accepted edits

<cperey> inputs would be provided in any tool which is comfortable for the person who wants to offer input

<hhalpin> kaliya?

hhalpin: Kaliya - what's your thoughts on lexicons, should we be feeding back into id commons, how do we [work with you?]
... would you prefer re-usage of ID commons terms or mapping? What would you prefer? What about for new terms?

<hhalpin> the mapping column

Kaliya: I thought talk with Christine & Renato went well - I trust them to judge if they can easily adopt it. Adding a column [mapping] would be good.

<cperey> i have made a comment about the use of Social graph above and think we can adapt previously defined words to embrace what we have today

Kaliya: That's more important than "my vocabulary winning" and there are a bunch of concepts that aren't in the paper / aren't in our lexicon. So best approach would be [mapping].

<hhalpin> would probably require going to identity commons workshop

hhalpin: are you aware of other communities which have lexicons which we are missing?

<hhalpin> that's the Venn paper?

<hhalpin> Venn of Identity?

<cperey> that would be part of the landscape of the Social Web

<cperey> re-use where approprite

<hhalpin> http://www.openprivacy.org/opd.shtml

<renato> Sorry all - I can't get back into the call - the new code no longer works!

Kaliya: The next generation - Kim Cameron's paper goes into depth on certain thing. If you look at his lexicon he points to other lexicons. Don't believe you have to invent a definition for everything.

I mean :(

<cperey> Renato is not on call

<cperey> relationship portability

<cperey> this is a tricky/difficult concpet

<hhalpin> this is where access/privacy/context is quite useful I imagine, and central

Kaliya: real issues with social graph portability... in particular where you have a relationship wher eyou don't want that relationship to appear in another context.

<cperey> Bob's relationships paper

<hhalpin> would be useful to send it to the list.

<cperey> it's getting late here!

<cperey> yes, it should be expanded in the paper

Dan: maybe we could close the call?

<cperey> meta-framework

Dan: Social graph portability should be explored in the paper.

<cperey> quite messy, often very private data in social profiles

<hhalpin> Meeting Adjourned

<melvster> thanks all

hhalpin: that is the difference between classical concept of linked data and the actual reality of social networking.

<cperey> thanks!

<renato> thanks all - see u on the list

- DRAFT -

Social Web Incubator Group Teleconference

20 Jan 2010

Attendees

Contents

Convene SWXG WG meeting of 2010-01-20T21:00Z

Action Reminders

Christine, Renato, and Kaliya on Social Web Frameworks

Summary of Action Items

Scribe.perl diagnostic output