Product & Startup Builder

Filtering by Category: Technology

Mean what you say, say what you mean

Added on by Chris Saad.

The Google Health Announcement has a few yellow (just before red) flags for me. Marissa Mayer is using language that sounds open, but it isn't. This is the most recent example of this sort of language manipulation and it needs to be clarified. From the announcement about Google Health:

Under a heading named 'Portability', Marissa writes:

"Our Internet presence ultimately means that through Google Health, you will be able to have access and control over your health data from anywhere. Through the Cleveland Clinic pilot, we have already found great use-cases in which, for example, people spend 6 months of the year in Ohio, and 6 months of the year in Florida or Arizona, and will now be able to move their health data between their various health providers seamlessly and with total control. Previously, this would have required carrying paper records back and forth."

It seems to me that Marissa is using the word 'Portability' to invoke the concept of Data Portability.

Data Portability is not about access to your data from any Internet connected device. Rather, Data Portability is about using established best practices so that users can bring their data with them and, more importantly, share or export that data back out.

Her post does not explicitly deal with the question of best-practice data interchange between various health record systems - only that their platform strategy will allow you to connect to (some?) services and tools. Will these connections be proprietary and lock us into a Google Health enabled record keeping system? Or will they be based on common Data Portability best practices?

I'm nominated for the 30under30

Added on by Chris Saad.

I just got this email from Antihill Magazine:

Dear Young Entrepreneur,

A friend, colleague or fan of your work recently nominated you for Anthill Magazine's 30under30 Awards, a national awards program designed to recognise and encourage young Australian entrepreneurs.

Details of your nomination are below, including th name of the generous person who nominated you for this awards program.

Cool!

If you'd like to nominate me you can do so on the Antihill website!

Some challenges in current DataPortability trends

Added on by Chris Saad.

In the last couple of weeks there have been a number of very positive steps forward for Data Portability in general and the DataPortability Project specifically. These include wins by the OpenID Foundation, the IC report, the DataPortability Report and others.

A couple of trends, though, are causing me a little concern and may require a slight course correction before they spin out of control and fragment, rather than standardize, the ecosystem.

1. Tightly coupled OpenID Implementations

On Plaxo right now there is a 'Sign in with YahooID' button. This is effectively an OpenID login mechanism, except to remove the user experience complexity of OpenID, Plaxo has worked with Yahoo to make it easier by creating a direct relationship.

This seems antithetical to the promise of OpenID and could ultimately create another mess of tightly coupled vendor relationships that defeat the purpose of a single sign-on identity that any provider can provide and consume.

A more long term solution must be to improve the generic OpenID user experience or devise an education campaign to help users learn the new login process.

2. Google's Social Graph API

While revealing an enormous usefulness in the existing XFN and FOAF data out on the web, Google's Social Graph API also reveals a weakness in current XFN and FOAF implementations. Many users are not aware when XFN data is included around URLs they enter, much less when the URLs are marked as rel=me.

For example when Twitter asked me for my homepage, I didn't understand that I was asserting a semantic link from Twitter to my blog that Google would later document and carve into stone as part of its implicit global social network in the sky.

As it stands, there is a real concern for user backlash as these APIs start being implemented and users find themselves presented with eerily accurate information about themselves magically appearing on websites without their 'consent'.

Some sort of best practice text and/or iconography is required around fields that will be marked up with XFN - particularly if rel=me will be used to that users can make informed decisions about the type of data they provide and how it might be used. Perhaps even an opt out checkbox is appropriate.

This is probably a job for the Microformat community to dig into and solve. They should probably solve it quickly though.

3. OpenSocial++

As OpenSocial implementations role out, it's becoming clear that there is no such thing as a pure OpenSocial container. Each container includes proprietary APIs and extensions that widget developers may choose to use.

Presumably these exist to differentiate each network and encourage developers to write enhanced apps for the environment.

The problem, though, is that developers need to write defensively for each custom API leading us to a place similar to browser compatibility hell. App developers will need to write and test their apps across every Container and will either have to hard code support for special APIs or keep their apps generic and ordinary.

Is this sustainable? Is there a better way?

If OpenSocial is going to be the Write Once, Deploy Many model for widgets, then the OpenSocial team at Google need to find a way to address this concern quickly.

Microsoft to join DataPortability - Where's the beef?

Added on by Chris Saad.

The news today is that Microsoft intends to join the DataPortability Project. So where's the beef? Why are long-time influentials from all these large vendors joining the cause? What are we offering? What are we trying to do? What's in it for them? What do they bring to the table?

Many of these questions are already answered in the Project Charter, on the FAQ page and in the excellent video by Michael Pick. but I thought that since I am getting much of the blame credit for this that I might put it all in context in my own words.

First, I'd like to clarify that DataPortability is not mine. It is an initiative that was co-founded by many people who all believed that something was missing from the existing Identity/Data/Standards landscape. Something very small, but very important.

A story...

A message. A simple rallying cry for the mainstream that would:

  1. Explain the problem in simple terms
  2. Help contextualize existing efforts to solve it
  3. Encourage inter operable adoption by users, vendors and developers

That's exactly what DataPortability brings to the community. A neutral, community driven forum in which standards groups can champion their technology in the context of a solution, vendors can raise their concerns and get answers and end-users can get a easy, safe and secure experience.

So back to the original question. Where's the value?

The value is in the exciting and critically important work that standards groups have been doing for years. It's in the new conversations being encouraged between standards groups and vendors both inside the DataPortability Project and independently 1 on 1. It's in the Action Groups that are bringing diverse people together. It's in the Action Packs we are developing to help tell the story to Executives, Developers, Designers, Bloggers and Vendors. It's in the Technical and Policy Blueprints we are designing to tell the story in a more detailed way and believe it or not, it's in the PR hype of the announcements.

Each announcement - each new member - both large and small - means another voice, and another opportunity to broaden the conversation and apply the sort of grass-roots pressure we all know already exists to create a web of data we can Connect, Control, Share and Remix.

In regard to Microsoft specifically, I welcome their voice in the conversation. Their team has been one of the most transparent and accessible of all the vendors we have spoken to and their products and services touch the lives of almost everyone both online and off.

Please join us Chris

Special thanks to Daniela Barbosa for finding the picture!

Jeremiah Owyang Suggests some deliverables for DataPortability

Added on by Chris Saad.

Jeremiah Owyang is one of those people with a sharp mind and a clear communication style that makes everyone stand up and listen. His input is always welcome and he has posted some great ideas for DataPortability.org. I thought I would respond to them here. I will post his requirements and my comments after each.

1. Charter document: This lists the groups purpose, who’s held accountable, and what we expect to see and goals

We have started a Workgroup Roadmap to ensure that the right documents get created and ratified. So far we have an emerging decision making structure and a path for deliverables.

We also have an emerging 'Agenda' which will be expanded into a Manifesto.

2. Needs: Problem definition document, what exactly is broken?

We are going to start defining Use Cases soon. We also have an emerging set of Design Goals for the DataPortability Technical Blueprint.

3. Plan: A strategy doc that outlines the next steps the group will take to fix the problem, dependencies, phases, and risks.

Again, we have the Roadmap...

4. Calendar: Of regular meetings, and who’s assigned to each problem. Dates that indicate what will be done when.

The dates will be set by the Roadmap. Meetings, at the moment, are not planned. We are discussing things on the Workgroup Forum.

5. Meeting minutes: A regularly published list of notes after each meeting that indicate the progress done by each member

The discussion forum is actually open to the public. Watch the conversation in real-time. This is 2008 people!

6. Document: Body of standards, the rules, and the final output

The main DataPortability deliverables will be the DataPortability Technical Blueprint and a DataPortability Policy Blueprint. These will map out a way for vendors to implement the world's open standards for maximum interoperability.

7. Openness: Public announcements of progress of major milestones

Again, the discussion is open and transparent and the public can watch in real time, and can also participate in the public group.

Members will obviously blog, tweet and shout results from the rooftops.

8. Actual results: our identity portable, safe, managed and controlled by the owners.

This will be up to vendors - and to bloggers, media and users who need to choose vendors who respect their DataPortability rights - once the Blueprints are ratified of course.

Can you suggest improvements? Comment here, or join the Public Discussion and start a thread!

Don't forget to read the rest of his post.

Seesmic Vs. TV

Added on by Chris Saad.

Watching the Le Web Panel on "TV Rebirth", I was struck by the tendency to compare seesmic and other video sharing platforms with TV. I think that comparing Seesmic (in particular) with TV is like comparing the phone with radio. They are totally different things that happen to just use the same media (video and audio respectively).

Also I am not sure why Current.TV does not get the recognition it deserves. I really believe that they need to join the conversation more aggressively. They deserve far more attention that they get. I'd say they should offer me a job, but chances are they are not even watching for references to their brand.

Also, well done to Robert Scoble who once again identified Attention and filtering as the next great frontier. As he knows better than most, the quantity of content around these days simply does not scale for most people. Content discovery and filtering (based on APML probably) will be huge in the coming years.

HD-DVD+Blu-Ray Hybrid

Added on by Chris Saad.

This cracks me up

I think both formats suck. DVDs and anything resembling a DVD is a hoax played by the studios so that people can 'own their own video store'. What's the point? The number of times you would watch the DVDs cannot justify the cost. And if everyone has a video store what's the point? Whatever format you choose to embrace and collect will be obsolete in a few years anyway.

But all those reasons against owning your own DVD style collection pale in comparison to the fact that all this content should be streamed from the net anyway - we should all have access to all content all the time. Anything short of that is a joke on consumers.

Is Google's size beginning to work against it?

Added on by Chris Saad.

I stumbled across an interesting article today - thought I would share.

"Quigo is not the household name that these other two search giants are. But the privately held company, which competes with Google (Charts) and Yahoo (Charts) in a key part of the online advertising business, is quietly becoming a bigger player."

Oh really?

"Quigo is benefiting from a perception of independence. There is general angst about the power that Google and Yahoo have and Quigo is able to sell against that. They have quietly replaced Google and Yahoo in a lot of newspapers for that reason," Sterling said.

So does that mean that size and weight can actually work against them in areas of perceived conflict of interest with publishers when it comes to advertising?

I've seen a growing tide of 'Is Google Evil?' type sentiment over the last year or so this is not exactly new. However this is the first business justification I have seen for old media to actually avoid 'feeding the beast', as it were, in favor of more independent ad networks operated by companies who are not 'competing for your business'.

Read the whole article on CNN Money.