On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 3:50 PM, Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Massimiliano Mirra wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 11:15 PM, anders conbere <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Most social network services today provide tools for a set of people > >> with share interests. Be it TripIt, LastFM, or Facebook. For lots of > >> these networks they derive their valuation from a locked in user > >> model. But for smaller Social Network services they're value for the > >> creators is in (for the most part) the quality of the users > >> participating and the number of users participating. > > > > +1 > > > > While the barrier of entry for web development has gone down > > dramatically with affordable hosting and OSS stacks, it's still very > > high when the the value an app can convey depends on size of user base > > and relationships. I think neither users nor most developers are > > happy about this. Solving this by leveraging a decentralized network > > (as opposed to just building on something like Facebook) would be > > <understatement>nice</understatement>. > > Part of the challenge is that XMPP rosters are Jabber-centric -- the > item key is a JID. Now if your JID is the same as your email address or > application-specific identifer then JID = "just an ID", but if not they > you don't have a way to force your identifier into the roster. Is this a > big problem? I'm not sure yet.
It would certainly be nice to see JID's play nice with resource structures like those found in OpenID (aka URI's), it might be interesting to look at wether or not users could be specified via XRI's (this is the required structure in openID). ~ Anders > > Peter > > -- > Peter Saint-Andre > https://stpeter.im/ > >
