RE: hey dude

[Marc C. <ma...@ca...>]

OK

Joel wrote.....

Working out some ideas for the peoplesDNS.. found RAP and have decided
that
it is the defacto rdf parser. also found a version of rdql that I might
use as it works with mysql as the one bundled with RAP does not suit my
needs..

============

Marc replies.....

>>>>>>>>>> Not up on RAP - but maybe Eric or Jonas is....

>>>>>>>>>> Check with Eric on parsers in general.  I believe he started
with an open parser and has been evolving it, fine tuning it.  Because
of the haphazard nature that many of these FOAF files take, the parser
has got to be smarter than most.

===========

back to Joel...

now I am working on some ideas for how exactly the dns will be worked
and which properites I can use for unique identifiers. Obviously the
sha1 mailbox can be used, but it is already being used in other areas,
but I need a way to tie those in. 

=============

>>>>>>>>>>>  OK - first dumb question - why can't we use sha1_sum email
as explicit unique identifier?  Wait - I know - most people have more
than one email.  So does that mean this leads us to establishing our OWN
(or shall I say) 'a unique FOAF' identifier?

====================

I have some good ideas, but also have
some other points in foaf that will need to be spec'd out very well.
I.e. query by name, by id, by email, by icq etc.. 

>>>>>>>>>>>>

============================

how to aggregate
groups of people and tie those into the above identifiers 

>>>>>>>>>>>> One thing I DO know is that FOAF has a concept of Groups.
We're instituting that class for our Groups -so we'll want to stick to
the current spec.  However (as I am sitting here today) I could just
about tell yah that no one else has done that yet.  

>>>>>>>>>>>  :-)

>>>>>>>>>>>  My dogma has preached about:
	- multiple kinds of personalities - persona - which we're using
for "kinds of accounts:
	- and we've established multiple kinds of relationships, so
that's happening as well

	- now we get to talk about multiple kinds of groups - or shall I
say multiple levels of groups.  Traditional (eGroups) logic dictates:
		- open public groups - anybody can join
		- moderated groups - you can request entrance, but must
get approval
		- private groups - which you can only be invited into -
and you must accept the offer

	- So my (our) dogma states:
		- all those kinds of groups are called groups (or
communities, or Tribes or Clubs - whatever) - they represent teh middle
circle of life

		- the inner circle is your family - these folks don't
make requests, need formal approval or even show any modicum of decorum.
They're your family - love um or hate um - you're stuck with them.
Special user interfaces will be built for these situations, where mom
and Dad get to define and control their kids interfaces, where
grandparents and distant cousins are helped out, where roomtaes and
close friends get brought in and treate dliek family.  Whatever the case
- family is teh inner circle and once they're in - there are all sorts
of new controls and rules, but not like Groups and......

		- the WWW - teh outer circle.  Basically public web
sites.  But these places have special rules and decorum as well.  And
huge upside advantages - of we can figure out a way(s) to mesh them in.

So three levels of Communities:
	- inner family
	- middle groups
	- outer public, WWW

============================

and currently
I am working on how people will call the pdns system, via webpages, via
javascript calls, via API port calls etc. Then what kind of calls.
Obviously I can borrow some ideas from true dns of MX and A records, NS
records etc.. 


>>>>>>>>>>>> I suggest pinging - on all updates.  That gives us a nice
record of what they're up to - which can be used to build interesting
activity logs.  Maybe that's not what you're asking.....

===============================

Also, updates and verification so that we know the user
updating the record owns the record. I have chosen a 256bit key for good
effect for passwords etc and will continue to use sha1 for obvious
reasons. 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>.  This verification/authentication issue can have multiple
answers..... but end-users will have to choose at least ONE!

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  Currently two reasonable authentication answers are:
	- Drupal's
	- SourceID's

================================


More details will follow.
-Joel

On Wed, 2004-04-14 at 17:57, Marc Canter wrote:
> Here's what I have:
> 
> (504) 975-6808
> 
> a) I think I got my buddy at Tucows to be interested in tLimit.
> 
> b) I just posted an updated version of http://broadbandmechanics.com -
> which has a credits/Us page: http://www.broadbandmechanics.com/Us.htm
> 
> Just wanted to make sure:
>       Bi) it was Ok to use your name
> 	Bii) if you wanted me to link in a contact email or something
>       Biii) or plug you or any of your projects further.....
> 
> :-)
> 
> - Marc
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joel De Gan [mailto:jo...@ta...] 
> Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2004 3:59 PM
> To: Marc Canter
> Subject: Re: hey dude
> 
> you must have the wrong number..
> today, bad day to call..
> kind of busy..
> 
> email contact is fine.
> -Joel
> 
> On Wed, 2004-04-14 at 16:02, Marc Canter wrote:
> > Just tried to call you - but got  a message from somebody named
Wendy.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > I'm putting up some updates to our corporate site and I've listed
off
> > "who we are".
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > Haven't put Contact emails or sites up - yet. Wanted to run it by
you
> > - before I did that.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > - Marc
-- 
joeldg - developer, Intercosmos media group.
http://lucifer.intercosmos.net