off-brainstorming: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
AmeerDawood (talk | contribs) (Added network names and blogs) |
(→Problem Statement: Is there really a problem?) |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
There exists no standard way for the publication and sharing of friends and their relationships aggregated by social networks. XFN has most of the functionality needed but must be slightly extended to allow for the identification of the online network in which the contact is in, and the for the ability to group similar accounts. | There exists no standard way for the publication and sharing of friends and their relationships aggregated by social networks. XFN has most of the functionality needed but must be slightly extended to allow for the identification of the online network in which the contact is in, and the for the ability to group similar accounts. | ||
* I disagree. FOAF and XFN are both widely implemented standards for publishing relationships online. Many social networks expose their data in one of or both of these formats. (See [http://microformats.org/discuss/mail/microformats-discuss/2008-March/thread.html#11745 "XFN getting smoked by FOAF" thread on uf-discuss, March 2008] and [http://esw.w3.org/topic/FoafSites FoafSites, ESW Wiki, W3C]. And as far as identifying the online network that the contact is in, the domain name of the link should do the trick in most cases. | |||
== Proposed Solution == | == Proposed Solution == | ||
Latest revision as of 10:16, 12 August 2008
OFF - OpenFriendFormat - Brainstorming
Problem Statement
There exists no standard way for the publication and sharing of friends and their relationships aggregated by social networks. XFN has most of the functionality needed but must be slightly extended to allow for the identification of the online network in which the contact is in, and the for the ability to group similar accounts.
- I disagree. FOAF and XFN are both widely implemented standards for publishing relationships online. Many social networks expose their data in one of or both of these formats. (See "XFN getting smoked by FOAF" thread on uf-discuss, March 2008 and FoafSites, ESW Wiki, W3C. And as far as identifying the online network that the contact is in, the domain name of the link should do the trick in most cases.
Proposed Solution
Extend XFN, placing the XFN links in an unordered list. The list structure lends itself well to this task, as we will also require support for grouping in aggregate generators.
Problem Statement
Specification only refers to social networks. There is no specified class for personal websites.
Proposed Solution
Add a Network Name of 'personal' to the specification.
Use Cases
Social Networks
- myspace
- digg
- magnolia
- delicious
- flickr
- tabber
- socialthing
- brightkite
Social Network Aggregations
Blogs
- livejournal
- blogger
- wordpress