Talk:OpenSocial

message: Should I put a reference to google gadgets here? http://code.google.com/apis/gadgets/ Melvster 17:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Structure

message: Under what governance is the open social reference implementation? Does google have benevolent dictator status or will the structure be more open?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.1.42.64 (talk) 02:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Governance

message: The OpenSocial page that everyone references doesn't actually exist, nor have I seen exist any time in the last 48 hours or so - what's going on? EAi 00:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been readded despite being a 404 at this time.  I removed it again, and it shouldn't be added until/unless it works. Oren0 02:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean, "rm dead link again"? When was it removed the first time? Dancter 02:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My fault.  I thought about removing it in my first round of edits.  I thought I had removed it at that point but I guess not.  Oren0 03:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Official Link

message: Should we add this to a criticisms section? http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2007/11/opensocial_social_mashups.html Melvster 14:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Criticisms are difficult to cover properly on Wikipedia, but are often important. I'm wary of a separate section for just criticisms, but perhaps a "Reception" section that includes various reactions including criticisms would be better. Dancter 15:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea, I'll see if i can dig up some articles representing various parties views on the launch Melvster 16:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reception

message: <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<Module>
  <ModulePrefs title="Hello, PHP World" />
  <Content type="html">
  <![CDATA[
    Hello, world!
  ]]>
  </Content>
</Module>
Was thinking of adding this, as per:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C_(programming_language)#.22Hello.2C_world.22_example Melvster 18:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is a good format http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swing_(Java)#Example Melvster (talk) 17:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hello, world

message: Added the Google 'Whats up with opensocial' page - is pretty much the definitive guide of what's going on Melvster (talk) 12:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: External Links

message: http://www.technewsworld.com/edpick/62762.html?welcome=1209164370 the article talks about the Opensocial Foundation.  Mathiastck (talk) 23:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Yahoo further embraces opensocial

message: For those of us who are not developers, describe the real world examples of the daily impact to people who visit participating OpenSocial sites.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.150.66.34 (talk) 21:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Layperson's Perspective 

message: Criticisms are out of date.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.251.254.172 (talk) 16:34, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms 

message: While I'm not going to take on all the WP:SOAP problems here, I'm going to remove the most blatant. In the process I removed a reference that might be used elsewhere:
*
--Ronz (talk) 19:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: I'm planing to improve the article as an assignment for the Social computing Course at University of Pittsburgh. The improvement will be based on criteria of Good articles.
--Tarmin68 (talk) 18:40, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Improvement 

message: One of the criteria for a good article is being illustrated by images. This article does not have any image. Where do you think we could get a good picture that would represent OpenSocial? 
--Tarmin68 (talk) 18:50, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I know that it is not possible to have a picture for every article, but I think for OpenSocial there must be a Logo Picture or a specific picture representing the project. --Tarmin68 (talk) 18:13, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

text: pictures are not that in rush for our task, so we can find the pictures while we are doing the task. Boomshakalakabangbang (talk) 03:15, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

text: I linked to the Social Web Working Group page rather than bringing in the members of the group and image. While it is true that they continue where the OpenSocial Foundation left off, this page shouldn't overly concentrate on the Socialwg. RelaxAbyte (talk) 19:24, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: A good article must be verifiable and list of all references should be presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. It seems that there is a problem with one of the references, which has an error message "Invalid ref tag". In addition, some of the other references are out of date, and must be updated. --Tarmin68 (talk) 19:10, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: That "Invalid ref tag" error was the first thing I noticed before I even read the rest of the page. RelaxAbyte (talk) 02:54, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

text: The last version of Open Social was released on August 28, 2012, I think this is one of the reasons why references are not up to date. It seems to me that after 2012 less attention was paid to OpenSocial. --Tarmin68 (talk) 18:18, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

text: Agreed. We can update with information from the W3C page that took it over when OpenSocial Foundation said it would close down so that one central group could focus on creating the standards. RelaxAbyte (talk) 02:50, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

text: I second this. Diversity of references is something to keep in mind as we reference information. When possible, it's good to only take a few talking points from each reference as opposed to taking all points from one reference.RelaxAbyte (talk) 02:50, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

text: That's a great idea. We should plan to use some part of this paper to make the article "Broad in its coverage" which is one of the good article criteria. We also should add a reference to this paper. --Tarmin68 (talk) 02:58, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

text: I go over the whole article, find it can be used for us, and I find some more about open social. And I will put them into talk page later.Boomshakalakabangbang (talk) 03:13, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

text: Mathiastck thought so too and mentioned it in a talk comment in 2008 above our section. Perhaps it's time that it makes it to the page if it isn't too outdated at this point.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by RelaxAbyte (talk • contribs) 02:58, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

text: So do you have more specific plan about the references? I'd love to know your plan and it is good for us to make the final decision.Boomshakalakabangbang (talk) 16:49, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I focused on the new content that was missing. In the process, I added new references based on the material that I included. I realize that you asked this almost a month ago and we addressed it in our overall plan, but I didn't want to leave this question unanswered in this section as to what we did. RelaxAbyte (talk) 19:26, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of References 

message: Some internal links such as tag-based language, RockYou, Plaxo, Ning, and ... are missing and must be fixed.
--Tarmin68 (talk) 20:28, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean by it is hard to find links to them? I checked all of them and they have pages in wikipedia, so the only thing we need to do is to link these words to their pages. for example this is the page of tag-based language (which is known as markup language, too). If any of them does not have a wiki page, there is no need for doing anything for it --Tarmin68 (talk) 02:48, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

text: I just searched some of them on google, and it is a little hard to find their conceptions. I should try to do that on wikipedia first. Sorry about that. So I agree with your opinion. If we can find their links, we should add them. --Babylu0815 (talk) 03:03, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

text: I think we just made the same mistakes here. Thank you for explaining.Boomshakalakabangbang (talk) 03:12, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing Internal Links 

message: During my search about OpenSocial I found that some web sites such as Friendster, hi5, LinkedIn, MySpace, orkut, and Salesforce.com are currently using OpenSocial, but the article does not mention them and their experience in using OpenSocial.
--Tarmin68 (talk) 18:27, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing Content 

message: These two pages provide interesting information about OpenSocial gadget which I think should be included in this article :
OpenSocial
OpenSocial gadget basics
--Tarmin68 (talk) 15:41, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Relationship Between OpenSocial and Google Gadgets 

message: Hi everyone. I think it is useful to make a new plan.Boomshakalakabangbang (talk) 02:14, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: There will be overlap as we pull in new references and source materials, but this is perfectly fine. Wikipedia has built-in versioning control. If there is an issue, we can do a rollback when needed. This way, we aren't forced to work in silos once we declare areas of interest just because we chose one article or section over another article or section. My immediate interest is the relation to the W3C and what the W3C are doing with it. This will surely overlap other areas that may be developed. RelaxAbyte (talk) 03:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I added information about the OpenSocial Foundation merging into the W3C in the introductory paragraph. The fact that OpenSocial as an independent entity wasn't fully clear to me until after I added the Release History. I added the part of the W3C based on where it was merged into the W3C. Work done beyond that point would be more appropriate for a completely separate Social Working Group page on Wikipedia. Given that the W3C already had its own page for the group, I linked to that instead. RelaxAbyte (talk) 19:35, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

text: I forgot one important thing, since we may not native speakers, we must make sure that when we doing the article, we use the correct words and forms, as well as grammar, so we may need some native speakers to help us before we change some contents. If one of yours  or both of yours are native speaker, please tell us. Cause we really need to use standard English in this task.Boomshakalakabangbang (talk) 07:20, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with you that because non of us are native, we should ask someone to check our writing, but I suggest to make changes first and at the end ask someone to correct our mistakes.--Tarmin68 (talk) 16:06, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

text:  I am a native English speaker. I will spend a little extra time reviewing the Manual of Style. However, it would still be helpful to ask others. An independent proofreader may be more effective than us attempting to proof our own work. RelaxAbyte (talk) 03:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

text:  That's great! now we have native speaker to correct the mistakes in English.Boomshakalakabangbang (talk) 16:52, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

text:  I have not seen many edits to proof at this point. Most of the edits have been minor revisions or updates to a reference. I've completed the new sections I said I was interested in and didn't see anything in anyone's sandbox. I'll check back one last time tonight for a final proofread of the page. RelaxAbyte (talk) 19:35, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

text: Just use them as citations. --Babylu0815 (talk) 16:58, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

text: plagiarism is not allowed, and we need to be careful but don't worry about too much cause we will do everything by the requirement. Boomshakalakabangbang (talk) 23:10, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

text: Nevermind. With the approaching deadline, I made the executive decision to include a synopsis of each revision. RelaxAbyte (talk) 04:57, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

text: Last time we talked about the missing content and we mentioned the usage of OpenSocial. We tought we could add those websites as the usage of OpenSocial. So I did not check that. I just found that information from other articles in Wikipedia. I will try to check that on google, and if they are not using OpenSocial any more, I will delete the usage section. --Babylu0815 (talk) 02:12, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

text: RelaxAbyte - So you mean I can try to add these usage to another section? Like usage history? Because the conception of OpenSocial is a little out-of-date, it is very hard to add other content to this article... --Babylu0815 (talk) 02:32, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: When you and Tarmin68 brought this up, it was stated that these sites were using OpenSocial. References weren't provided then so I took it as fact. Based on the current article, it reads more like promotions for other websites. This was a previously discussed issue between other editors years ago. If the section is rewritten to focus more on the usage of OpenSocial and why it was significant than what those sites are, then I would agree that this section could be used to demonstrate real-world application of OpenSocial. As it is, I don't feel that it provides more information. It could be a sentence or two in the Background section, or added to the intro paragraph list as Enterprise websites that used OpenSocial. I removed the "Currently" section out of background.
I think the version part is too detailed, it may catch too much attention for someone who read this article, the catalogue is too detailed, is this really need to make the catalogue that long and detailed? Boomshakalakabangbang (talk) 05:58, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plan 

message: I create this new section.Boomshakalakabangbang (talk) 16:27, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Decision of changes 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on OpenSocial. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add  after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://blog.pmarca.com/2007/10/open-social-a-n.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified