17:13:15 RRSAgent has joined #swxg 17:13:15 logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/11/03-swxg-irc 17:13:17 RRSAgent, make logs world 17:13:19 Zakim, this will be 7994 17:13:19 I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot 17:13:20 Meeting: Social Web Incubator Group Teleconference 17:13:20 Date: 03 November 2009 17:13:52 use cases for social web from primelife: http://www.primelife.eu/images/stories/deliverables/h1.2.5-requirements_selective_access_control-public.pdf 17:14:03 see http://www.primelife.eu/ 17:14:05 Claudio Venezia introducing himself 17:14:19 Tom (?) from NTT communications 17:14:19 SWXG Wiki: http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/socialweb/wiki/Main_Page 17:14:29 Adam Boyet from Boeing 17:14:40 Rigo from W3C dark side of the law 17:15:25 martin has joined #swxg 17:16:22 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 "PrimeLife - Bringing sustainable privacy and identity management to future networks and services" 17:17:39 Adam presenting the Insight plaform internal tool of Boeing 17:17:55 s/Insight/inSite/ 17:18:11 Wagner talking head of W3C Brazil office 17:18:36 Håkan Jonsson (hajons), Sony Ericsson 17:18:41 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 ... and deployment of social web in W3C Brazil Office 17:19:45 Yoshiaki internal student of W3C/Keio Univ 17:20:05 s/Wagner/Vagner 17:20:40 Martin Higham - Ocasta Labs 17:22:05 I presented Primelife use cases that _exclude_ tearing down the walls 17:22:49 nord_c has joined #swxg 17:23:03 Christian de Sainte Marie (RIF WG) just joined as an observer. 17:23:52 Scribe: FabGandon 17:24:05 scribenick:FabGandon 17:24:22 chair:Dan_Appelquist 17:24:49 DKA flipping the agenda ; want to start with the use case documents. 17:25:28 User stories : http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/socialweb/wiki/UserStories 17:25:57 http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/socialweb/wiki/UserStories 17:27:13 DanBri let me know if you want to skype in to our lovely session. 17:27:20 user stories are split e.g. http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/socialweb/wiki/UserStories/BusinessIntelligence 17:27:58 it's dinner time here soon unfortunately, perhaps I watch by IRC and jump in if something specific crops up? 17:28:15 http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/socialweb/wiki/UserStories/DragAndDrop 17:28:25 http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/socialweb/wiki/UserStories/AcceptingAFriendshipRequest 17:29:21 latest template http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/socialweb/wiki/Template:UserStory 17:29:42 matt has joined #swxg 17:30:22 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 Rigo : to get momentum we need to also include the social web makers in the picture 17:31:45 Kai has joined #swxg 17:31:53 Fab : +1 for scenarios including all the people impacted by the stories 17:32:10 DKA : yep, service providers must be included too in the scenarios 17:33:23 Hakan: should we include third-party tools developers? 17:34:21 Rigo : PrimeLife developed Persona we can reuse. 17:34:58 csma has joined #swxg 17:36:10 DKA: Actors: people (end-users), service providers, developers (3rd party) 17:36:27 DKA : looking at the use cases one by one. 17:36:42 http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/socialweb/wiki/UserStories#Download_your_data 17:37:48 DKA reading use case "Download your data" 17:38:52 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: is this part of another Use case ? if so is there an opportunity to merge them? 17:41:48 DKA : is this about having a unified API to the social web ? 17:42:33 FabGandon : API (such as in the CRUD scenario) + Format and model (as in FOAF + Relationship) 17:43:07 DKA : Difference between having interest in data and having the ownership of data. 17:43:07 the PrimeLife personae are published at http://www.primelife.eu/images/stories/deliverables/personas_primelife.pdf 17:44:16 Rigo: data self determination says person data is mine ; every where except in the US 17:44:52 Information self determination : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informational_self-determination 17:45:54 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 Rigo : Alice's 17:46:46 Rigo: if you have spread data you have a right to get it back, modify, etc. 17:47:25 Rigo : data is mine and have a say on this data 17:48:06 FabGandon: application of the CRUD scenario http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/socialweb/wiki/UserStories#CRUD_Operations_on_Social_Data 17:48:29 DKA: Data copied from Alice’s by Bob are still Alice’s data? 17:49:06 Rigo: if its only Bob, this is private data of Bob so there is nothing you canb do 17:50:17 ... 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 ... in the case of Bob's copy there is no legal aspect to it. 17:51:03 ... in the case of a Telco then there is a legal aspect to it. 17:51:52 DKA : DRM ? 17:53:18 Rigo : no privacy issue about this particular use case. 17:54:26 I need to go to a telco 17:55:18 DKA : data + policy 17:55:21 FabGandon : see also Intransitivity of Policies Applied to Social Network Data http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/socialweb/wiki/UserStories#Intransitivity_of_Policies_Applied_to_Social_Network_Data 17:56:09 Hakan: “downloading” does not describe the intent of the user. 17:56:55 Adam: the use case even talks about aggregating 17:57:13 Rigo: opportunistic use of data ? 17:59:30 DKA : Changing the title to "Reuse your data" quote "I have made the change because I am God" 18:00:11 Now talking about Drag and Drop http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/socialweb/wiki/UserStories#Drag_and_Drop 18:01:04 Ann : not really different from previous use case 18:01:28 Adam: it is about adding information. 18:03:05 Ann: another use case would be filling the blanks of some data I have. 18:04:10 ... merging with data I have 18:04:43 Hakan: isn't it ease of use use case? 18:05:04 DKA : ok we should merge both use cases. 18:05:38 Liking to a remote Friend http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/socialweb/wiki/UserStories#Linking_to_a_remote_friend 18:07:01 Adam: connection request across networks. 18:09:09 Ann: “establishing a connection across networks” since the notion of request is dependent on some application. 18:09:33 Martin: follow and friendship are very different. 18:10:35 FabGandon : slash dot has "foes" that you won't find in Facebook. 18:12:39 Martin : the application you use to set the link will impose the type of link you set. 18:13:10 lkagal has joined #swxg 18:13:20 DKA : different kinds of links. 18:13:42 Martin: social network B will impose its rules. 18:15:40 DKA: Social network B needs to know the request and decide to grant it or not. 18:17:34 Adam : Joe will thus appear as a User of social Network A although he does not use it? 18:17:51 Adam: the social networks are actors. 18:18:56 DKA editing the page as we speak. 18:21:47 http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/socialweb/wiki/UserStories#Linking_to_a_remote_friend 18:24:28 DKA: missing use cases : foe, blocking, ... 18:24:59 Adam: current text is in conflict with post-condition 18:26:21 Hakan: post condition should state what the social networks A and B claim about Alice and Joe 18:26:57 DKA writing alternative paths. 18:27:33 AnnB has joined #swxg 18:32:06 Adam: if I am on several network which one should deal with my request? 18:33:40 BREAK until 11AM 18:46:05 right i am to treck to wimbledom to lug boxes half away around london 18:46:11 hehe 18:46:14 wrong window:) 18:46:16 sorry 18:56:53 danbri has joined #swxg 18:57:49 btw if anyone is in Montreal, identi.ca / statusnet are hiring --- http://jobs.status.net/ 19:00:32 scribenick:Adam 19:00:37 Scribe:Adam 19:02:25 csma has joined #swxg 19:03:18 martin has joined #swxg 19:08:49 rigo has joined #swxg 19:11:53 dka: let me tell you where my cursor is ... alternative path 2 19:12:36 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 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 ... 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 .... 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 has joined #swxg 19:15:24 nord_c has joined #swxg 19:17:11 rigo: the desire of the business model is that SN A typically wants to rope in the user from SN B 19:17:20 martin: thats not the desire from the user 19:17:32 dka: captured that as an alternative path #2 19:18:02 http://www.primelife.eu/images/stories/deliverables/h1.2.5-requirements_selective_access_control-public.pdf 19:18:09 oops, wrong URL 19:18:18 http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/socialweb/wiki/UserStories#Linking_to_a_remote_friend 19:20:01 http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/socialweb/wiki/UserStories#Linking_to_a_remote_friend 19:20:19 timbl has joined #swxg 19:21:23 VagnerW3CBrasil has joined #swxg 19:21:23 dka: the thing that makes connecting connections across social networks (SN).. both SN providers need to be aware 19:22:47 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 .... thats the kind of leap we've been making 19:23:16 timbl: one way alice can tell sn b, or a third party could crawl the web 19:23:39 timbl: you could ask who's friending me, you could do that without coperation of the sites 19:24:49 dka: so you're saying another alternative path that SN B could only find out after the fact 19:25:18 timbl: another thing, you could send the requst by public email, alice could send it to bob's email 19:25:45 Currently for example qdos.com has a reverse friend lookup serviuce over the FOAF graph 19:25:57 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 .. 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 dka: SN B is able to request from SN A are there any pictures that i can display from alice 19:28:27 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 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 (aside, when you say SN, ... increasingly it might just be 'site'?) 19:32:02 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 has joined #swxg 19:32:32 dka: i think this means we need to add a use case taht i don't think is accounted for 19:32:37 re lookup services, also consider http://socialgraph.apis.google.com/ 19:32:43 ... joe visits alices profile page on SN A 19:32:58 it is used by http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/10/introducing-google-social-search-i.html (and based on xfn and foaf) 19:34:36 timbl: there is some initial interaction that seems to be missing 19:34:51 Kai has joined #swxg 19:35:17 rigo: the reported in the social identity ???? they discussed unique identifiers and email address as the unique identifier 19:35:30 ... they discussed web finger 19:35:47 Haken: its a discover step that we're missing 19:36:38 oshani has joined #swxg 19:36:44 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 dka: in this case, joe (SN B) knows about the relationship 19:38:33 Ann: i wonder if the title is misleading 19:38:50 ... maybe connection is misleading 19:39:09 danbri has joined #swxg 19:39:22 timbl: there could be lots of ways that alice knows about joe 19:39:51 .... could be email, or could have found each other ... eventually they establsh this connection 19:40:26 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 dka: if alice makes a request, then joe knows she made the request 19:41:23 martin: there is a post condition that joe knows about alice 19:41:44 Missing step 2: Alice sees joe as an unconfirmed friend, Joe get extra rights to see Aice's stuff. 19:41:49 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 rigo: typcially you have a public profile where it gives you a teaser to get you to join the SN 19:43:15 Ann: the profile could be obscure too 19:43:42 rigo: the web has unlimitted number of possibilities to discover people 19:44:21 danbri has joined #swxg 19:44:57 rigo: in this case there is no back identifier 19:45:54 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 Missing step 2: Alice sees joe as an unconfirmed friend, Joe get extra rights to see Aice's stuff. 19:47:19 dka: adding that notion to the user scenario 19:47:54 refresh user scenario page 19:48:18 yes, http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/socialweb/wiki/UserStories#Linking_to_a_remote_friend 19:48:22 thanks 19:48:41 dka: does that mean we should delete the Accepting a Friend use case 19:49:15 (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 identi.ca/statusnet have groups) 19:49:27 martin: its seems to be talking about http ... low level stop 19:49:44 Ann: seems that there are components of accepting and rejecting that might be good to keep separate 19:51:09 dka: seems that rejecting is a different alternative path and that blocking may be a separate use case 19:51:23 FabGandon: maybe the blocking could be part of the CRUD one 19:52:11 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 dka: editing wiki, strying to add blocking 19:53:46 .. and then lets talk about that ... i think the relationship is binary but the meta-information is on top of that 19:54:05 s/aspect of block/one aspect of block/ 19:54:14 timbl: thats how it is on facebook, but they've had to start adding classification to it 19:54:43 s/being a stalked/being stalked and want to block that person/ 19:54:52 ... but whether i classify you as a friend or a foe, is not visible to you 19:55:17 dka: i still like thats classifications of your social graph 19:55:28 ... i have linkage but i hang metadata off of that linkage 19:55:52 Hayen: but do you have to accept to be a foe 19:56:14 all the services will add private and public categories, i'm sure of it... 19:56:18 s/Hayen/Hajons/ 19:56:49 dka: is there a case where anything more than the binary connection is a personal matter 19:57:15 Håkan = hajons 19:57:20 thanks! 19:59:34 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 here's an example i started btw, putting people into groups --- http://wiki.foaf-project.org/w/FOAFLists 20:00:58 Ann: what if you want to remove / revoke the relationship 20:01:15 tlr has joined #swxg 20:01:30 martin: establishing the connection and then another could be managing the connection 20:02:32 dka: now we have establishing, managing, and blocking 20:03:33 Håkan: I'm thinking about the metadata. we're talking about establishing the relationship ... what about the rules of the relationship 20:04:16 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 martin: with status.net 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 Håkan: providing some type of informationa bout the type of relation since there are no standards for this 20:05:45 .... but there is no way for SN B to consider different types of relationships 20:05:51 danbri has joined #swxg 20:05:56 ... it can't apply policies 20:06:22 claudio: later on in the privacy section of the use cases, there are some things about different types of identities 20:07:04 ... 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 s/sitation/situation/ 20:07:58 dka: i think one of the preconditions is that SN A has already verified the identity of Alice 20:08:15 rigo: don't even get in to the game of determinging what an identity is 20:08:56 s/determinging/determining/ 20:08:59 ... 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 ... do not try to identify a physical natural person 20:10:05 ... 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 s/sitation/situation/ 20:10:21 dka: agree we don't want to get in to solving the identity problem 20:10:28 tlr_ has joined #swxg 20:11:22 scribe:Rigo 20:11:29 scribenick:rigo 20:12:22 dka: adding to preconditions that SN A has added Alice as an identiy 20:12:56 tbl: lots of personae around, some people can correlate others don't 20:13:24 rrsagent, pointer? 20:13:24 See http://www.w3.org/2009/11/03-swxg-irc#T20-13-24 20:13:32 dka: one use case missing, relationship between different profiles to say "this is me" 20:13:47 ...is a kind of managing personae idea 20:14:01 ...actually there is no way to say that "this is me" 20:14:27 re this is me, XFN handles that very concisely: rel=me 20:14:30 tlr has joined #swxg 20:14:39 i've been looking at foaf/xfn integration - via groups: 20:14:52 here's an example i started btw, putting people into groups --- http://wiki.foaf-project.org/w/FOAFLists ... also as a plan for bridging foaf with xfn 20:15:10 ...use case is e.g. to say to my phone that all of those different entries is me 20:15:51 CSM: is that related to the use case this morning? 20:15:55 dka:yes 20:16:09 ??: can do the 'me' thing 20:16:50 ?? = Håkan = hajons 20:17:18 also, TBL said FOAF can identify "me" 20:17:42 FOAF has a few tricks for figuring out identity from descriptions (plus simple use of URIs and owl:sameAs) 20:19:22 on the me rel tag: http://www.rexblog.com/2009/04/21/19358 20:21:38 lots of discussion on how linking or saying this is me can cause concerns 20:23:41 rw: don't absolute IDs, just use relative identies wherever you find them 20:23:42 tlr: the "me" relationship might help one SN discover info from "me" in another SN 20:23:50 tlr: ...dka 20:23:54 ...said 20:24:12 dka: how to see information flow between networks 20:24:36 ...how this is better compared to the current situation 20:25:18 ...bad scenario: how to manage all fragmentation 20:27:03 HJ: want to link my professional profiles together and my private, but independent from each other 20:29:01 nord_c has joined #swxg 20:29:15 vocab.org/relationship 20:30:20 http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/socialweb/wiki/UserStories#Managing_an_existing_connection_across_social_networks 20:30:22 dka: managing connections, we haven't anything yet 20:31:13 ....if Alice and Joe have connected, SN A and SN B already know about each other 20:31:21 tbl: reciprocal? 20:31:51 dka: even in asymetric relations, a and b have to know each other 20:32:06 http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/socialweb/wiki/UserStories#Managing_an_existing_connection_across_social_networks 20:33:00 dka: basic connection unless Bob has to agree 20:33:42 hj: connection only established after permission 20:34:02 MH: we are "managing" 20:34:22 HJ: we should include the possibility to reject a relation 20:34:52 dka: http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/socialweb/wiki/UserStories#Establishing_a_connection_across_social_networks 20:35:33 CV: friend only discussion on business thinks 20:35:52 ...normally you don't talk about nature of relations 20:36:14 HJ: not saying that we need always type of relation, but we should allow for it 20:36:40 dka: this can be serialized.. 20:36:57 ...if connection is established, the connection is categorized.. 20:37:25 HJ: this is only about current things, not how this should be in the future 20:37:45 AB: friends that you don't care about 20:38:02 MH: there may be a level of control 20:38:17 AB: profile information is something that you totally control 20:39:08 ...not true in a corporation environment, no choice, company policy. can't force people to put picture 20:40:29 rw: best practices document for corporate environment may be interesting 20:40:58 MH: establish connection with your business network, it is not only you that determines 20:41:08 AB: they struggle already with it 20:41:41 ...already big warnings about not giving names 20:41:54 ...most worried about phishing attacks 20:42:02 hhalpin has joined #swxg 20:42:18 DKA: not talking about your secret company projects ... 20:42:26 hey sorry I'm late 20:42:35 dka: capture some stuff on enterprise 20:42:44 how is the meeting going? 20:42:59 FG: it would be good to have use cases from inside big corp viewpoint 20:43:17 ...it would be 5.14 20:43:29 Just ping me if you need any help, otherwise I'll monitor in and out via IRC. 20:43:29 ...another one on the mailing list 20:43:59 AB: different in business intelligence, here rather somebody from inside the corp communicating outside corp 20:44:23 FG: we do not capture use of social networks inside corp 20:44:36 ...on the intranet 20:44:43 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 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 RW: in corp environment, linking several instances of SN needs super social network with ID 20:47:46 mischat has joined #swxg 20:47:47 ===================================== 20:47:49 http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/socialweb/wiki/UserStories#Managing_an_existing_onnection_across_social_networks 20:48:11 dka: do we need to have specific relationship vocab 20:48:23 FG: recategorizing existing relation 20:49:51 harryhalpin has joined #swxg 20:51:08 Adam: categorization, should Bob be aware. 20:51:25 dka: different from requesting friendship to share information 20:51:40 ...or some additional functionality 20:51:54 tbl: categorization of relation and categorization of persons 20:52:58 ...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 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 ...or class of people that have attended a certain conference 20:53:35 ...some will be public, some private. Notion of Group is very general 20:54:14 FG: case: party with all colleagues except one... intersection, challenge to do that ergonomically 20:54:36 tbl: all my friends except this persons is difficult 20:54:58 AB: you have the list of friends, then you can unclick the preselected, 20:55:03 tbl: so procedural? 20:55:07 AB: yes 20:55:35 Adam: Tbl wants to use the groups consistently across different groups 20:55:53 tbl: to every relation, there is a class 20:56:22 MH: does this have an impact on later interconnect? We should focus on those 20:56:52 are you talking about what i think you're talking about? 20:57:04 groups/lists vs relations? 20:57:20 sounds like rdf domain and range...but not *required* class? Open world or closed world? 20:57:22 yeah, kind of :) 20:57:24 my current example is 20:57:27 #danbri :homepage ; :openid ; :made #danbri-wouldliketoknowbetter . 20:57:28 #danbri-wouldliketoknowbetter a :Group; 20:57:29 :member [ a :Person; 20:57:31 :homepage ; 20:57:33 :account ] . 20:57:51 ... but not clear how much logic to put into Group versus simply using OWL and subclasses of Person 20:58:41 oshani has joined #swxg 21:00:18 lunch 21:00:19 out to lunch all 21:00:49 FabGandon has left #swxg 21:00:57 rrsagent, please draft minutes 21:00:57 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/11/03-swxg-minutes.html rigo 21:14:55 tlr has joined #swxg 21:20:47 Kai has joined #swxg 21:48:03 nord_c has joined #swxg 21:58:57 danbri has joined #swxg 22:04:03 VagnerW3CBrasil has joined #swxg 22:04:40 martin has joined #swxg 22:07:01 FabGandon has joined #swxg 22:07:47 Adam has joined #swxg 22:10:33 timbl has joined #swxg 22:11:29 Restarting. Going to continue with Use Cases and not follow the agenda 22:11:43 DKA has joined #swxg 22:12:13 scribenick:martin 22:12:20 Scribe martin 22:12:22 Scribe:martin 22:12:29 ScribeNick martin 22:12:32 http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/socialweb/wiki/UserStories#Managing_an_existing_connection_across_social_networks 22:13:33 rlewis3 has joined #swxg 22:13:42 claudio has joined #swxg 22:13:53 http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/socialweb/wiki/UserStories 22:15:22 DA: Picking up with Managing an existing connection 22:19:50 claudo has joined #swxg 22:20:56 MH: Either participant can act on an existing relationship 22:21:32 Intros from new attendees 22:23:39 DA: Requests to change can be negotiated, declined or ignored 22:24:20 Adam: Does anywhere have these alternatives today 22:24:50 HJ: Says Facebook does 22:26:09 DA: Even if it doesnt happen now then if it makes sense in the distributed model... 22:27:24 DA: LinkedIn sort of categorises relationship after they are established 22:28:25 HJ: Polite blocking on IM 22:30:08 DA: Asking HJ to add a link in the wiki 22:32:36 polite blocking in SIP: RFC 3856, RFC 2779 22:32:55 DKA: If there is no reciprocal relationship what impact is there if Alice recategorises it from her SN 22:33:46 yfukami has joined #swxg 22:34:29 DKA: Bob is not informed 22:34:39 http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/socialweb/wiki/UserStories#Managing_an_existing_connection_across_social_networks 22:35:26 example of mutual and non mutual relationships on http://www.crowdvine.com/ 22:36:33 claudo: Why does it need to be explicit that Bob isnt informed? 22:39:21 martin: We shouldn't be proscriptive about behaviour. Bob may be informed... not is 22:39:31 tlr_ has joined #swxg 22:40:30 hajons: Alice may ant to request a better relationship 22:40:39 s/ant/ask/ 22:42:03 hajons: We are making assumptions about the default relationship 22:44:26 DKA: Using Dopplr to explain his view. 22:44:57 timbl has joined #swxg 22:45:00 DKA: We are decorating the connection 22:45:44 Adam: We must allow the public and private categorisation 22:47:53 DKA: An alternative path maybe that this cateogorisation is happening with a connection 22:48:52 DKA: This should be on the previous use case 22:50:10 AnnB: Relationships vary over time 22:51:20 just say rfc286 in the wiki and the link was automatically added 22:51:34 http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/socialweb/wiki/UserStories#Establishing_a_connection_across_social_networks 22:52:07 kai: Twitter is not reciprocal. 22:52:48 DKA: Follow is still reciprocal not identical. The followee can see the connection 22:52:55