2016-03-30 UTC
KartikPrabhu, Erkan_Yilmaz, netweb, sagerdearia and tantek joined the channel
KartikPrabhu, ben_thatmustbeme, tantek, Left_Turn, netweb, Garbee and omarhuanca joined the channel
TallTed, tantek, nitot and sagerdearia joined the channel
gRegorLove, emmak, KevinMarks and KartikPrabhu joined the channel
# 21:15 KevinMarks xfn defined a lot of separate relationship types - I was wondering how many were useful in practice, and how many made interop harder # 21:21 tantek pretty sure all the xfn relationship types were precisely defined (with purpose / differences) to avoid any interop problems over confusion # 21:21 tantek that being said, friend / acquaintance / contact was always a bit of a challenge # 21:22 tantek since UIs didn't reflect that distinction really globbot joined the channel
# 22:31 tantek following happened nearly after XFN was "done" # 22:31 tantek in popular form at least. Flickr was the first place I saw it as an alternative to the symmetric friending model of Friendster etc. # 22:32 tantek and then there was the following terminology problem # 22:32 tantek which Twitter didn't solve until at least 2007-08 # 22:33 tantek we based XFN on the empirical usage of labels, clusterings etc. in blogrolls, and it did a good job of representing that 80/20 # 22:33 tantek what we didn't do is model it on social networks (which were still nascent at the time) # 22:34 tantek those pretty much just use rel=contact (plus the follow stuff) # 22:34 tantek and rel-me-auth, web sign-in, and IndieAuth use rel=me # 22:34 tantek so those are the two values that have survived publisher/consumer market dynamics # 22:35 tantek KevinMarks: the interesting thing about at-risk for XFN is that we did minimize the values quite a bit up front # 22:36 tantek the only conceptual error I think was rel=friend vs. acquaintance, but rel=friend was the first proposed value (I know, I proposed it to Eric and Matt in response to the SXSW panel on Future of Blogging saying some nonsense about how everyone would have FOAF files) # 22:37 tantek and "friending" was already social networking terminology per Friendster # 22:38 tantek though I believe when looked at blog roll usage, not everyone people linked to did they say was a friend, and from asking people the friend vs. acquaintance distinction seemed useful/desired to them (as publishers) # 22:38 tantek 1.1 added contact to that mix as meaning even less than acquaintance # 22:38 tantek since that better reflected what social networks were deploying # 22:39 tantek this was long before the social observation that your friends and friendsters (or today your "facebook friends") were different thigns # 22:39 Loqi tantek meant to say: this was long before the social observation that your friends and friendsters (or today your "facebook friends") were different things # 22:40 tantek KevinMarks: note also that all of XFN 1.1 was incorporated into vCard4! # 22:42 tantek which today's social network would simply call "squad" # 22:42 tantek "The registry is pre-populated with the values defined in [xfn]" # 22:42 tantek This document also specifies two additional values: agent, emergency # 22:44 tantek (both of which seem sensible, though I wonder how much they are used in practice) # 22:45 tantek I feel like I have seen some speaker's websites link to their "agent" to handle speaking requests - so that has web-based empirical conceptual use # 22:45 tantek I don't know of anyone publishing their emergency contact on their web page # 22:48 tantek having a speaking agent makes sense in the same way, they schedule conference speaking for you! KartikPrabhu joined the channel
omarhuanca Hi
@eFrane Seems like a perfect choice for finally using linked data and/or microformats for something useful. (twitter.com/_/status/715213810374680578)
KevinMarks xfn defined a lot of separate relationship types - I was wondering how many were useful in practice, and how many made interop harder
tantek most of the other values got incorporated into a different view - relationship-status: http://microformats.org/wiki/relationship-status