Comments on: A proposal for a conceptual “Open Stack”

By: Links 04/18/2009 « standards

Links 04/18/2009 « standards — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 00:51:45 +0000

[...] Social Lipstick » Blog Archive » A proposal for a conceptual “Open Stack” [...]

By: Allen Tom

Allen Tom — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 02:45:15 +0000

Email sucks because anyone with your email address can send you mail. In an ideal world, someone would be able to send a message to your OpenID, and your Open Stack Provider would determine who the sender is and route the message to the communication channel of your preference.

This also assumes that the sender can be authenticated. I would imagine that users would have a Messaging Service that is OAuth protected. The Messaging Provider would determine if the sender is authorized to send messages to the user, and could possibly apply sorting roles to the message depending on the recipient’s relationship to the sender. The message could be routed to the recipient’s email address, cell phone, IM, or whatever, based on the recipient’s preference.

If I remember correctly, I think you blogged about something similar, so this is not exactly all that new. :)

By: Luke Shepard

Luke Shepard — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 15:29:57 +0000

Ha, I was playing around with the plugin but as you point out, it’s pretty inconsistent to have both up there at once. I’ll take it down until I can figure out how to do both.

By: Chris Messina

Chris Messina — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 05:29:07 +0000

Weird, I’m logged in with BOTH Facebook and Friend Connect! Ha!

So, what do you think of my blimp?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/factoryjoe/3341536775/
Detail: http://www.flickr.com/photos/factoryjoe/3341539323/

By: Luke Shepard

Luke Shepard — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 15:44:23 +0000

Johannes, I like yours because it strives to be an actual “stack” - like a technology stack. However, I don’t think these concepts *really* work together into a stack all that easily- they are all approximations. I also don’t really like putting “Mashups” at the top- that word makes me think of simple data widgets, instead of the full-featured applications that should be living at the top. (For example, would you list the New York Times as a “mashup”?)

Also, mine has fewer “things” even if I chose to stack them in more layers :)

Finally, how would you update yours to incorporate Streams?

Bertil, I’m interested to see yours when it’s ready

By: Bertil Hatt

Bertil Hatt — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 15:00:00 +0000

I made a different classification, based on how Facebook introduce their own ideas, that make more sense — and actually justify why some have to be below other in a graphical way. I still need to find a way to include Meta-tags in there, but I’ll be sure to send you a link when I’m done.

By: Johannes Ernst

Johannes Ernst — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 06:05:04 +0000

Here is my version of this diagram. I call it “Open Identity Stack” and it has fewer layers than your’s ;-)

By: Luke Shepard

Luke Shepard — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 22:36:27 +0000

Sure, Messaging belongs conceptually. But besides email, are there existing open standards for messaging? I guess Jabber could make sense.

By: Allen Tom

Allen Tom — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 21:44:02 +0000

Do you think there should be a Messaging layer in the stack? Sites and Connections should be able to communicate with you, and email is awful.