Re: Issue-19 questions remain - a proposal

In WndieWeb, you can do this now.

Sign up for a indieweb compatible blog with withknown.com, wordpress
plugins, or add microformats to your blog.

Send webmentions if you want to notify someone directly.

To read the group feed as a whole, there are a couple readers already like
Kylewm's Woodwind or Arron Parecki's Monocle

I like the idea of using a social web to communicate.  I thought there was
opposition to this idea when tantek brought it up when the issue first came
up.

Blog style systems are not a replacement for real time chat via IRC
though.  I believe real time communication was listed some time ago as out
of scope for the APIs we are developing.

Ben



On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 7:14 PM, henry.story@bblfish.net <
henry.story@bblfish.net> wrote:

>
> > On 22 Apr 2015, at 00:53, Bassetti, Ann <ann.bassetti@boeing.com> wrote:
> >
> > Could you hack together a prototype of this idea, Henry? I vaguely get
> the gist, but it would be so much more useful if I could see your idea in
> action. And, you know, Demos R Us!
>
> yes, that's relatively easy. It does require some minimal work by each
> member of the group though.
>
> 1. Each member has to have a blog which supports lets say Atom XML, and
> they need to tell us what that
>   blog is. They could just make a blog by using any of the thousands of
> tools out there such as  wordpress.
>   For more geeks out there they can just write the XML out by hand -
> that's what I have done recently.
>
> 2. To tell us what their blog is. They can do this in one of two ways:
>   a) give us their WebID with the WebID describing their blog as described
> in my previous post. This would allow them to change their blog at any time
> without bothering the working group admins
>   b) or if a) is too techy for you, just give us the blog URL ( which
> needs to have a link to their atom feed ),  and we can add that info to the
> foaf:Group profile that the W3C will publish
>
> Of course everyone who writes out their foaf profile gets extra points,
> since they show independence and remove work from the admins. It also means
> they can keep that info up to date.
>
> So that is as much as we need from each group member.
>
> Then we need an automatic way for people to read the foaf Group, follow
> its members links, and build an RSS list from it that existing feed readers
> can understand so that they can then load that list into existing feed
> readers. I think there was a standard for that a while ago, but I stopped
> tracking that space, and I am not sure what the widely deployed standard is
> now.
>
> We'd need everyone to make sure they regularly updated that list from the
> foaf:Group published by the W3C, in case new members joined or left. Then
> of course it would be up to different people to create user interfaces to
> do the same thing directly, so that the foaf:Group could be polled
> regularly, and automatically.
>
> I suppose the only thing I'd need to build would be a foaf:Group reader
> that would follow the foaf:weblog links and build the required files to
> make a proof of concept. I'd love of course to have a Facebook like wall
> for W3C posts on my own home server, but that requires getting a designer,
> writing a lot more code, and since everyone probably has different
> preferred blog readers that would only be useful for me.
>
> Is there a way to test if there is consensus to build this?
>
> Henry
>
>
> >
> > Can someone say how the pump.io or indieweb or any other community
> discusses stuff? That is, outside of email.
> >
> > I agree we seem to be guinea pigs, demonstrating a real-life social use
> case.  (I was going to say "rat hole" .. but that seemed to be mixing my
> rodents!)
> >
> >  -- Ann
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: henry.story@bblfish.net [mailto:henry.story@bblfish.net]
> >> Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 3:41 PM
> >> To: Halpin Harry
> >> Cc: public-socialweb@w3.org
> >> Subject: Re: Issue-19 questions remain - a proposal
> >>
> >>
> >>> On 21 Apr 2015, at 23:22, Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> -- Is there a way for the wiki to send a notification when there is
> >>>> an update? Does that happen via the Watchlist? (Personally I find it
> >>>> hard to have to go look, randomly, for updates. That feels really
> >>>> unproductive.)
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> We might be able to, although that would flood the mailing list. Thus,
> >>> it seems wiser to simply note major changes in the telecon.
> >>>
> >>>> -- Should we agree to use the "Discussion" pages?
> >>>
> >>> We could, or just see the note re IRC.
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Or is IRC the place for conversation?  It's great to use Loqi to
> tell! someone
> >> (who's not present) something. It's great that there are daily logs.
> >>>
> >>> Of course, the larger problem may be some people simply may not want
> >>> to discuss with each other, due to time constraints or fundamental
> >>> disagreements. Again, that's not a WG issue per se nor solvable by a
> >>> resolution. We cannot, for example, make a resolution saying "Tantek,
> >>> you have to spend whatever time it takes to agree with bblfish even
> >>> though you two disagree about how specs should be built."
> >>>
> >>> That being said, I think the IG should volunteer to host a discussion
> >>> over Henry's stories.
> >>>
> >>> I'd like to stick the WG to technical topics that are clear and
> >>> delimited rather than working style differences that are open-ended.
> >>
> >> I think Anne is asking: "how would this work even if people were
> willing to
> >> discuss things". Clearly if people don't want to listen to each other
> and
> >> discuss anything, but are just pushing an agenda then it is going to be
> difficult
> >> to get to anyway close to a consensus, and consensus building is the
> mission
> >> of the W3C.
> >>
> >> I understand that there are very strong divergences of methods and
> >> undersanding of the space we are in. I have gone through all of them
> myself
> >> at various points in the last 10 years. In any case at the face to face
> it was
> >> agreed in fact that the group is not going to push for one standard
> because
> >> the divergences are too strong at the moment. But for the divergences to
> >> reduce then we need to have communication.
> >>
> >> So let's assume we do want to communicate, and look at the issues we can
> >> deal with, namely buidling a process for communication. After all we are
> >> trying to build a social web. Now there are a number of tools that one
> needs
> >> to build to have a social web.
> >>
> >> One needs a way to send everyone in a group a message to alert them of
> >> some project or idea, so that the whole group can focus its attention
> on a
> >> particular topic. What tools can one use for this?
> >>
> >> a) mailing lists have until now been very good and served the W3C and
> IETF
> >> well, as they allow a message to be sent from one to many
> >> b) Wikis are not good unless the whole wiki has an RSS feed that people
> >> would be expected to add to their blog reader and poll regularly. This
> as you
> >> point out might be very noisy.
> >> c) IRC channels have a way to ping one person, but not to ping the whole
> >> group
> >>  ( the gitter chat for github has an @all, but that ends up working by
> sending
> >> every
> >>   member an e-mail )
> >>
> >> So if e-mail is out by Tantek's decision, and neither wikis nor irc
> channels are
> >> the right tool for the job, then we have the following question:
> >>
> >> Q1: How would one do one to many communication using the Social Web
> >> without relying on e-mail?
> >>
> >> This is a question we MUST answer. It should be part of our user
> stories,
> >> since it is holding us up here. (But it is difficult to answer this if
> we don't have
> >> a channel to communicate about the various ideas on how to answer it,
> >> before we build it ).
> >>
> >> If we are to be able to do this now, using tools at our disposal, we
> need to
> >> use existing standards.
> >> Lukily I think they are available, and have been for 10 years. We could
> do it
> >> like this:
> >>
> >> One answer is that the Social Web WG could have a URI, lising each
> member
> >> of the group by their WebID, and that each WebID profile could describe
> that
> >> user including a foaf:weblog relation to their blog ( which has a
> relation to
> >> their RSS Feed where they can post their messages ).
> >>
> >> Eg the social Web WG would have
> >>
> >> <https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg#grp> foaf:member
> >> <http://bblfish.net/people/henry/card#me>,
> >>                                                  <
> http://www.ibiblio.org/hhalpin/foaf.rdf#me>, ...
> >>
> >> Then each of these WebID profiles would have a relation relating the
> user to
> >> a blog like this:
> >>
> >> <http://bblfish.net/people/henry/card#me> foaf:weblog
> >> <http://bblfish.net/blog/> .
> >>
> >> Then by a drag and drop operation on the Social Web foaf:Group into a
> feed
> >> reader, the feed reader could fetch all those blogs, find the linked
> rss feeds,
> >> and poll those regularly ( once a day at least ), and show the group
> member
> >> what others have read. Perhaps we'd have to agree that blogs related to
> >> social web WG would be tagged by a special tag, so that we could filter
> out
> >> people's cat pictures from the discussion relevant to the topic. The W3C
> >> could index all those posts in an archive.
> >>
> >> To do this we would not need to invent anything new, but we could use
> >> existing standards such as:
> >> • Atom feeds
> >> • foaf profiles
> >>
> >> We'd still perhaps need to agree on a link relation to state that one
> atom
> >> entry was a response to another one. Is this all we need to do?
> >>
> >>
> >> Henry
> >>
> >>
> >> Social Web Architect
> >> http://bblfish.net/
> >>
> >
>
> Social Web Architect
> http://bblfish.net/
>
>
>