Dear Facebook: let us define the relationships

We’ve begun implementing some of Facebook’s Open Graph on Alikewise, my dating startup. By Dare Obasanjo’s definition, books are our main “social object”.

(The site is based around the idea that a person will associate themselves with any number of books, with the hope that this will inspire notice by other singles.)

Indeed, the Open Graph protocol is a step toward a more semantic web by allowing us to put agreed-upon metadata into our pages.  What it doesn’t do is allow us to define relationships among the metadata. Facebook reserves this right for itself.

For example, books obviously have authors. There is no way to define this relationship, as far as I can tell. We can indicate that a page is about a book or about an author, but not both. Ditto actors and movies, or politicians and their voting history.

In other words, one page = one freestanding social object. We need more.

On my site, I’d like to associate a person with any number of books, in a way that is meaningful outside our site. (A person might choose to identify themselves via Facebook, Twitter or any OpenID, for example.)

Then, any third-party site could aggregate a profile of a person based on Alikewise’s information and others. One might Google “people who like Catch-22” and get more meaningful results.

The Open Graph is helpful in that it pushes a semantic web forward, using Facebook’s market power. And via its Like button, Facebook can indeed relate people to social objects. I would like this ability extended beyond Facebook’s firewall.

Advertisement
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Dear Facebook: let us define the relationships

  1. Lisha Exford says:

    Hello, I really enjoy the layout of your site. What template are you using?

  2. Ann says:

    Completely understand what your stance in this matter. Although I would disagree on some of the finer details, I think you did an awesome job explaining it. Sure beats having to research it on my own. Thanks

  3. Cat says:

    Considerably, the article is in reality the best on this precious topic. I harmonise with your conclusions and will eagerly look forward to your next updates. Just saying thanks will not just be sufficient, for the phenomenal lucidity in your writing. I will directly grab your rss feed to stay informed of any updates. De lightful work and much success in your business dealings!

  4. Great post, sharp mind and brilliant writing. Thanks Ann

  5. Hotels says:

    Thanks for the information, i posted your blog to my facebook group in the category `ClipperHouse | Dear Facebook: let us define the relationships`. Regards, Katy

  6. Absolutely agree there. Very good weblog Google referred me to.
    Warmest greetings from Canada

  7. Hello, I really love the look of your site. What design are you using?

  8. Well, this is my first visit to your blog! We are a group of volunteers and starting a new initiative in a community in the same niche. Your blog provided us valuable information to work on. You have done a marvellous job!

  9. It’s pretty much like that, it seems simple and it is so there is no need for to many concerns nor complicated explanations. Anyway if you still have questions about it you may run a google search and you will find more info but if i remember right there was a very explicit article somewhere around this website. You may wanna check it also.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

Gravatar
WordPress.com Logo

Please log in to WordPress.com to post a comment to your blog.

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s