Wouldn’t it be great if Social Media tools could talk to each other, and share basic profile information about you, your interests and your network?
The Federal Goverment (DoD) is working on that very question, and has requested public input (DoD Guidance Forum).
In spite of XML, which was invented to facilitate software talking to software, it remains a complex problem. Many vendors are in the mix (eg., Twitter, Google, Facebook, Linked-In) and social media culture tends to say ‘no’ to standards and control. Where can we draw useful boundaries on Web 2.0 integration issues, and how do we make our profile and social network information “portable”?
Here’s what I’m thinking. These comments and a few more are now cross posted as DoD’s blog comments:
WEB 2.0 DEFINITION. Connecting people and content in more intuitive ways through adoption of social technologies; this drives enhanced user experience and interaction capabilities, with benefits that include: (a.) expanded user personalization, choice, and content filtering, (b.) propagation of rich, more intuitive multi-media, (c.) facilitation of all aspects of community building and interaction, and (d.) empowerment of local contribution on a global scale.
PORTABILITY is a significant gap in today’s Web2.0/SM space. The need is for a common, single-source entry with multi-vendor re-use for personalization data (profile data about the user and their preferences) as well as social network data (who the users is connected to, and importantly, why, defined by tags). The gap is the ability and willingness of stakeholders — including vendors, users, developers, large stakeholder coalitions (eg., government) — to organize around a minimal, practical set of common guidelines. I believe an open source consortium for Web2.0/SM Data (Personal & Social Network) Portability Guidelines is needed. A ‘meeting in the middle’ to achieve a shared approach for ‘top down’ and ‘bottom-up’ data exchange would be ideal. The faster this gets done, the more quickly portability gets solved, which will lead to accelerated adoption of Web 2.0/SM.
WEB 2.0 IMPACT ON BUSINESS PROCESS (“Enterprise 2.0”). Social media and Web 2.0 are ultimately about connecting people and content in more intuitive ways, so the business processes impacted are those involving human interaction and content messaging. Examples:
- Collaborative Research.
- Customer Service (1:1 PR).
- Software Development.
- Marketing & Media Communication (1:n PR).
- Collaborative Solutions (Knowledge Management). [enhances capability/value of 1-4 above]
- HR Talent Acquisition & Supplier Sourcing.
AUTHORITATIVE REFERENCE. “Wikinomics” by Don Tapscott (2006).
What needs to happen to make this work?
“For adoption in business, government or academic organizations, Web2.0/SM requires cultures of trust & empowerment, with team environments that encourage knowledge sharing and collaboration.”
Feel free to comment, here or on the DoD site, as the spirit moves you. These are key issues. I’d like to know what you’re thinking.
What about security and a discussion of the web1.0 infrastructure over which web 2.0 rides? You cannot divorce the content (e.g. social technologies) from the internet or the mobile pathways on which social technologies ride. You must understand both together. And attacks against the infrastructure continue to increase as well as attacks on new social technologies, you cannot talk about portability and impact on business process without discussing security and risk management.