As I thought it might make sense to define the problem field before we
look for solutioins I posted a list of possible use cases to my blog
yesterday (http://mrtopf.de/blog/web20/use-cases-for-portable-social- networks/). Chris then asked me to put this on the use case page which
I did now:
Feel free to add your own problems you like to see solved to that list
so we can then think about ways to work on them (and probably we need
to find a scope for it).
I also now more or less copied it verbatim so feel free to adjust
these use cases accordingly, e.g. to make use of the definitions we
have in place.
For my idea about open social networks, maybe also have a look at
> As I thought it might make sense to define the problem field before we
> look for solutioins I posted a list of possible use cases to my blog
> yesterday (http://mrtopf.de/blog/web20/use-cases-for-portable-social- > networks/). Chris then asked me to put this on the use case page which
> I did now:
> Feel free to add your own problems you like to see solved to that list
> so we can then think about ways to work on them (and probably we need
> to find a scope for it).
> I also now more or less copied it verbatim so feel free to adjust
> these use cases accordingly, e.g. to make use of the definitions we
> have in place.
> For my idea about open social networks, maybe also have a look at
You wrote in the beginning: "The data model
The main object is a Person. A Person has a profile and contacts"
But I am a Person but I want 2, 3 or 4 profiles !! Not one !!
1 is for "public business activities"
2 is for "different business activities"
3 is for "private activities"
4 is ...
En example ? I work for a Big Computer Company in the US (Profile 1)
but in the same time I am looking to open a Hotel resort in France
(Profile 2) and I do not to mix the Profiles in a single Profile. And
I do not want a DOUBLE DATAPORTABILITY...
Netviber
On Jan 15, 2008 4:51 PM, Opo <netvi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi, > Good work but...
> You wrote in the beginning: "The data model > The main object is a Person. A Person has a profile and contacts"
> But I am a Person but I want 2, 3 or 4 profiles !! Not one !! > 1 is for "public business activities" > 2 is for "different business activities" > 3 is for "private activities" > 4 is ...
Ah, right, actually I want this myself and many people esp. in Second Life want that, too. I missed this when writing it down so feel free to add the use cases for that.
And afaik this should also be possible with some OpenID providers, isn't it?
Now I wonder if this has any implications on your contact list. Probably it would make sense to select per contact or group of contacts a profile to see. But what happens if you get a contact request? this probably was issued from one of your profiles and the question might be how to handle this. So having some use cases to start thinking about all the implications might indeed be a good thing.
-- Christian
> En example ? I work for a Big Computer Company in the US (Profile 1) > but in the same time I am looking to open a Hotel resort in France > (Profile 2) and I do not to mix the Profiles in a single Profile. And > I do not want a DOUBLE DATAPORTABILITY... > Netviber
Another use case...interaction with objects in real life. Think about
Microsoft's
Surface technology. I could blast my portable data from my phone to
a Surface-enabled (or similar tech) table in Las Vegas to have it come
alive
with what I like and give me recommendations on where to go.
On Jan 15, 10:17 am, "Tao Takashi" <tao.taka...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 15, 2008 4:51 PM, Opo <netvi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi,
> > Good work but...
> > You wrote in the beginning: "The data model
> > The main object is a Person. A Person has a profile and contacts"
> > But I am a Person but I want 2, 3 or 4 profiles !! Not one !!
> > 1 is for "public business activities"
> > 2 is for "different business activities"
> > 3 is for "private activities"
> > 4 is ...
> Ah, right, actually I want this myself and many people esp. in Second Life
> want that, too. I missed this when writing it down so feel free to add the
> use cases for that.
> And afaik this should also be possible with some OpenID providers, isn't it?
> Now I wonder if this has any implications on your contact list. Probably it
> would make sense to select per contact or group of contacts a profile to
> see. But what happens if you get a contact request? this probably was issued
> from one of your profiles and the question might be how to handle this. So
> having some use cases to start thinking about all the implications might
> indeed be a good thing.
> -- Christian
> > En example ? I work for a Big Computer Company in the US (Profile 1)
> > but in the same time I am looking to open a Hotel resort in France
> > (Profile 2) and I do not to mix the Profiles in a single Profile. And
> > I do not want a DOUBLE DATAPORTABILITY...
> > Netviber
> And afaik this should also be possible with some OpenID providers, > isn't it?
DY> Sure. With all the OpenID providers I am aware of, you can simply get another account. I do this right now, myself. When I go to an OpenID-enabled site where I want to login in my "work" context, I can use the OpenID URL associated with my employer, http:// blogs.voxeo.com/ , because I've enabled that site to be an OpenID provider. When I want to login to a site in my "personal" context, I can use the OpenID URL http://www.danyork.com/ . In my case, it's two sites with which I'm associated, but it could as easily be two accounts and an OpenID provider (or from two different OpenID providers). The challenge, of course, is that now I've got two different logins, passwords, etc.
DY> In my *ideal* world, though, I would have one digital identity but could expose different profiles with different information based on the context in which I was connecting. So something like "www.danyork.com/work/" and "www.danyork.com/personal" or "work.danyork.com" or something like that. I only login once, but then can choose (perhaps by the URL I gave) which profile to expose.
> Now I wonder if this has any implications on your contact list. > Probably it would make sense to select per contact or group of > contacts a profile to see. But what happens if you get a contact > request? this probably was issued from one of your profiles and the > question might be how to handle this. So having some use cases to > start thinking about all the implications might indeed be a good > thing.
DY> Yes, I would want to differentiate. Plaxo makes a start with this. When you get a contact request you can choose whether they are Business, Family or Friend. Each can conceivably see different sets of information about you. (I'm not sure how far Plaxo takes this.) But yes, I would want to designate the profile someone sees. (And would want an arbitrary number of profiles because while I may only want two, others may only want one and others may want five.)
> DY> Sure. With all the OpenID providers I am aware of, you can simply get > another account. I do this right now, myself. When I go to an > OpenID-enabled site where I want to login in my "work" context, I can use > the OpenID URL associated with my employer, http://blogs.voxeo.com/ , > because I've enabled that site to be an OpenID provider. When I want to > login to a site in my "personal" context, I can use the OpenID URL > http://www.danyork.com/ . In my case, it's two sites with which I'm > associated, but it could as easily be two accounts and an OpenID provider > (or from two different OpenID providers). The challenge, of course, is that > now I've got two different logins, passwords, etc.
> DY> In my *ideal* world, though, I would have one digital identity but > could expose different profiles with different information based on the > context in which I was connecting. So something like " > www.danyork.com/work/" and "www.danyork.com/personal" or " > work.danyork.com" or something like that. I only login once, but then can > choose (perhaps by the URL I gave) which profile to expose.
That would be my idea, too. But then it gets difficult to identify you on other websites. Take Second Life: Many people do not want to reveal who they are in Real Life so this would mean for them that they might need different OpenIDs because these are right now the most discussed candidates for identification. In the SL Architecture Working Group there also was some talk about this regarding using different alt accounts with one login. In-world you would show up as the choose alt avatar. This is the same for many games such as Battlefield or Tabula Rasa (although in the latter they all have the same lastname).
Now I wonder if this has any implications on your contact list. Probably it would make sense to select per contact or group of contacts a profile to see. But what happens if you get a contact request? this probably was issued from one of your profiles and the question might be how to handle this. So having some use cases to start thinking about all the implications might indeed be a good thing.
DY> Yes, I would want to differentiate. Plaxo makes a start with this.
> When you get a contact request you can choose whether they are Business, > Family or Friend. Each can conceivably see different sets of information > about you. (I'm not sure how far Plaxo takes this.) But yes, I would want to > designate the profile someone sees. (And would want an arbitrary number of > profiles because while I may only want two, others may only want one and > others may want five.)
True. So I think I need to draw some diagram soon to get my thoughts clear on that ;-) But what we would have is:
- one login - multiple profiles / identities - each profile has a contact list attached. If somebody sees this identity on a website (say Facebook) they can only see the (public) contacts of that identity - on each profile I can define which parts are visible to which group of people (or individual). Groups can be family, friends, enemies etc.
Some questions on this:
- should it be possible to define on which social networks I want to show up as a contact? E.g. Joe has me as a contact and says his contacts are all publically visible. Now I don't want this, even my name is secret. Should I be able to prevent this? - can the one login, multiple identities be done on the OpenID provider side? I guess so unless the OpenID is actually used for identification.
I thought I have more but that's it for late evening ;-)
In the Higgins project this is exactly the approach we're taking. One OpenID with multiple profiles "underneath."
[In Higgins these profiles are called i-cards and there's an open source browser-integrated app called an identity selector that let's you edit them, share them with others, synchronize them with silos like Facebook, HR directories, etc.]
-Paul
Dan York wrote:
<snip>
DY> In my *ideal* world, though, I would have one digital identity but could expose different profiles with different information based on the context in which I was connecting. So something like "www.danyork.com/work/" and "www.danyork.com/personal" or "work.danyork.com" or something like that. I only login once, but then can choose (perhaps by the URL I gave) which profile to expose.
DY> In my *ideal* world, though, I would have one digital identity but could expose different profiles with different information based on the context in which I was connecting. So something like " www.danyork.com/work/" and "www.danyork.com/personal" or " work.danyork.com <http://work.danyork.com> " or something like that. I only login once, but then can choose (perhaps by the URL I gave) which profile to expose.
That would be my idea, too. But then it gets difficult to identify you on other websites.
Take Second Life: Many people do not want to reveal who they are in Real Life so this would mean for them that they might need different OpenIDs because these are right now the most discussed candidates for identification. In the SL Architecture Working Group there also was some talk about this regarding using different alt accounts with one login. In-world you would show up as the choose alt avatar. This is the same for many games such as Battlefield or Tabula Rasa (although in the latter they all have the same lastname).
This problem is solved by using a particular kind of OpenID, namely, i-names. They are based on XRIs that can be resolved in such a way that they drill into the SL silo and identify a particular alt in SL. I've had a number of conversations with the previous CTO of SL about this. It is all doable.
To me that's what data *portability* is about: porting information
from one place to another...
I'd say "identity" is a term that relates to a "place", ie a website
(or a group, as with MS Passport) where I maintain some profile data.
I have several identities/profiles as in, say:
- work
- family
- friends
- camera club
There might be a lot of overlap in there too: I might be working with
my brother, for example.
I want to manage this complexity, and this will be the main
attractiveness of DataPortability to general users: a central
repository from where they can sync their various profiles.
This should apply to my contacts too: if I happen to know of two
identities of a contact, I should be able to make the connection in my
contacts list.
What do we have?
- My Data repository : things that people should know about me, based
on relationship with me.
- My contexts : for each identity, a relationship level (so DP can
sync the data that makes sense to)
- My contacts : id, relationship level, and list of identities (so DP
can merge data from known identities)
This way, viewed from my DP repository, I have a synthetic view of the
information I share and also, for each contact, a synthetic view of
the all the information I'm made aware of.
The tricky bit is in making "relationship levels" management flexible
enough while staying at the no-brainer level...
On Jan 15, 11:58 pm, "Paul Trevithick" <ptrevith...@gmail.com> wrote:
> DY> In my *ideal* world, though, I would have one digital identity but could
> expose different profiles with different information based on the context in
> which I was connecting. So something like "www.danyork.com/work/" and
> "www.danyork.com/personal" or " work.danyork.com <http://work.danyork.com>
> " or something like that. I only login once, but then can choose (perhaps
> by the URL I gave) which profile to expose.
> That would be my idea, too. But then it gets difficult to identify you on
> other websites.
> Take Second Life: Many people do not want to reveal who they are in Real
> Life so this would mean for them that they might need different OpenIDs
> because these are right now the most discussed candidates for
> identification. In the SL Architecture Working Group there also was some
> talk about this regarding using different alt accounts with one login.
> In-world you would show up as the choose alt avatar. This is the same for
> many games such as Battlefield or Tabula Rasa (although in the latter they
> all have the same lastname).
> This problem is solved by using a particular kind of OpenID, namely,
> i-names. They are based on XRIs that can be resolved in such a
