Comments on: Opening up the social graph

By: serial consign

serial consign — Wed, 26 Dec 2007 03:36:52 +0000

(some of) the best of 2007

By: march.

march. — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 11:40:33 +0000

this sounds like noserub.com to me ;-)

By: gfranxman

gfranxman — Sun, 23 Sep 2007 05:40:14 +0000

How does such a centralized service stack up against people just using FoaF? I’m not sure if all services support it, but sites like LiveJournal definitely do, and if this is an important issue to users, wouldn’t they just switch to services that support it without having to worry about abuse by some sort of centralized authority?
Also, I wonder if this really just becomes an extension to OpenID and profile sharing…

By: mohit-mbm

mohit-mbm — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 17:04:44 +0000

Hey Jyri, Do check out my views on this post of yours:
http://managementbymatrices.blogspot.com/2007/09/social-graphs-and-vanilla-networks.html

By: Mayhem & Chaos

Mayhem & Chaos — Wed, 05 Sep 2007 23:05:39 +0000

Hi!
>The MusicBrainz / CDDB case is illustrative of
>the difficulties one can run into both when a
>for-profit service starts misbehaving and when a
>nonprofit that takes over its job struggles
>without critical mass.
I would disagree with your viewpoint here — MusicBrainz has been focused on maintainable growth, rather than reaching critical mass ASAP. The big difference between CDDB/FreeDB and MusicBrainz is that the former were building a massive database without reguard to quality — something that scales easily.
MusicBrainz on the other hand has been building a community that cares about data quality. Building communities is a lot slower and more fragile than collecting random unreviewed crap that doesn’t require a cohesive group of people to peer review.
As for critical mass, the deals withe the BBC and Last.fm are showing that we’re now ready for serious commercial action after spending the right amount of time building a solid foundation.

By: Mayhem & Chaos

Mayhem & Chaos — Wed, 05 Sep 2007 23:05:39 +0000

By: Robert

Robert — Wed, 05 Sep 2007 10:31:31 +0000

Hi,
the Liberty Alliance ID-WSF People Service specification addresses this issue of a shared “friends” service to a very large degree. But as pointed out it takes an entity with the right characteristics to become sufficiently popular. However the Liberty People Service spec allows for *your* people service (provider) to be different from *my* people service (provider), as long as those providers do have some “trust” in each other (some agreement).

By: Erik Willumsgaard

Erik Willumsgaard — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 06:43:12 +0000

Hi again Jyri,
Just to say that if you are going to take any initiatives regarding SNI, social network interoperability, I will with pleasure contribute with participation in workshops, meetings, web conferences etc. to developing this vision further.
It seems to me that an urgent task will be to obtain a more clear overview of the initiatives already taken, cf. http://web-2-1.blogspot.com/
That will i.a. involve some work to test and make up some comparative reviews of the tools which are under development and about to get launched in the near term.
The question is who can contribute with sufficient resources to make up this task. I can take my part of it, but will need some financial support if it has to be more than a “spare time job”!
Regards,
Erik W.

By: Erik Willumsgaard

Erik Willumsgaard — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 06:24:22 +0000

Dear Jyri
I strongly welcome any effort than can promote and facilitate a better interoperability between social networks, an interoperability that are not constrained to the adoption of an increasing stream of apps in Facebook.
Whether we then are going to label these efforts “Web 2.1″, as I have done, cf. http://web-2-1.blogspot.com/ and previous debates around this subject on Jaiku, Pownce and Danish media, or something else matters less. The most important is that strong players will cooperate to realize this vision.
Best regards,
Erik Willumsgaard