What this should tell you? That large companies at the forefront of enterprise social computing — like Intel, Dell, and others — routinely turn to multiple suppliers for different types of internal and external communities. This may have something to do with inter-departmental politics and silos, but I think it actually makes sense: different vendors in this marketplace target different scenarios and will therefore be better suited to different business objectives

While I certainly agree that different vendors target different scenarios, I’m not sure I’d so easily accept the notion that multiple internal and external platforms make sense. He continues:

For example, Telligent sees some internal implementations, but is known mostly for its external-facing community implementations, while Jive’s Clearspace can and does get implemented externally, but is mostly known for its behind-the-firewall implementations. You the buyer should not assume that one size fits all.

Of course there’s no one-size-fits-all approach to community building. But does that necessarily mean the answer is to license multiple competing proprietary platforms for a single enterprise?

How well integrated are an internal implementation of Java-based Clearspace and an external implementation of .NET-based Telligent ever going to be, given that both are proprietary?

• What happens when Intel’s business needs suggest sharing content from the internal Clearspace community with users in the external Telligent community? How difficult is it to migrate content from one to the other?
• What happens when the internal community realizes it might benefit from external input, or the external community starts to involve internal users?
• Do users who have a presence in both maintain separate usernames and passwords? How easily can both be pointed at a shared user repository?
• How efficient is it from an IT management point of view to have ongoing enterprise license agreements with two vendors? Do users joining both communities essentially increase the license fees for both vendors?

Of course, imposing one monolithic solution may not be possible either. I regularly deal with clients who have not just two core content management systems but as many as five or six: due to the “inter-departmental politics and silos” Tony mentioned above, or due to corporate acquisitions which bring their own legacy systems, or due to serial leadership changes and different IT strategies over time.

How do you enable the right balance of “fit-to-purpose” (which might identify different platforms for different social scenarios) against “fit-to-enterprise” (which would explore the impact of platform proliferation and silos)? What happens when the community you expected to be purely internal suddenly realizes that it would benefit from external input?

Leveraging mature open source platforms- and customizing them to fit the specific scenarios of the community being served- will better preserve long term business agility and ensure that those silos don’t become islands, but can share data and functionality with each other.

See also: CMIS, ECM Interoperability, and Services-Oriented Content Management

Here’s my summer reading list. Tell me what I’m missing.

• The Future of the Internet — And How to Stop It, by Jonathan Zittrain
• Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing Without Organizations, by Clay Shirky
• Who Controls the Internet?: Illusions of a Borderless World, by Jack Goldsmith and Tim Wu
• Two Bits: The Cultural Significance of Free Software, by Chris Kelty
• Designing For the Social Web: Voices That Matter, by Joshua Porter

It’s a bit heavy, I know, but this is the kind of stuff I find interesting.

What are you reading this summer? What key new text have I left out?

In case you’ve been somehow able to escape the increasing presence of *camps, BarCamp is one of the earliest and one of the best. It was on the occasion of BarCamp Boston (the original) that I started blogging, though to be fair you shouldn’t hold them responsible for that.

Here’s an hCalendar microformat of the event info:

Read more about BarCamp, view schedules, and learn how you can participate, by visiting the wiki at http://2008.barcampboston.org/.

(People I’m reading on this include my colleague Sebastian Wohlrapp, Marc Andreessen, Josh Catone, and Jeremiah Owyang – of course there are a gazillion others as well).

Did I miss something somewhere in the API documentation or the Campfire Video? (It has been a busy few weeks, and I would be happy to be wrong).

As I see it, in short: Open Social is not Social Network Portability. It’s social network widget portability.

Open Social enables widgets written to its OpenSocial API to be deployed (without rewriting) to multiple containers, but it doesn’t link my profiles on various networking sites, or allow me to carry my relationships with other people across network boundaries.

So if I make a “photos of my dogs” widget, and deploy it on Orkut and Hi5, I can share photos with my friends on both of those networks, but the two are completely separate. I’d have to log in to Orkut and share some photos there, then go log in to Hi5 and share some photos there.

My friends who are only on Orkut won’t see photos I share to Hi5, and vice versa. If I add someone as my friend on Orkut, they don’t “automatically” become my friend on Hi5.

In fact, as I read it, nobody but me even really knows that these two profiles (one on Orkut, one on Hi5) are the same person.

This mostly helps developers of widgets to run inside social networks. Instead of having to write an application for Orkut, and another for Hi5, and another for X, developers can create one application adhering to the Open Social API, and it can be used on all those networks.

This also helps small social networks, who don’t have a large enough user base to convince widget developers to create widgets for their platforms – the long tail of social networking platforms, if you will.

If anything, this will enable small, silo-style, disconnected social networks to continue to proliferate.

Can anyone point me to any example demonstrating how Open Social is more than described above?

I know the Container API / SDK – which will tell networks what they need to do to become containers – has not yet been released, and perhaps more will be clear when it is. But for now, this seems like a good thing (I do think an open API for widgets is a good thing) but certainly not a great thing.

[Update]
See Tantek’s comment below and his post on Open Social and Portability, as well as this O’Reilly Radar post from yesterday, which I just came across: “It’s the data, stupid.”
[/Update]

[Update2]
There is this text in the description of Hosting OpenSocial Apps:

To host OpenSocial apps, your website must support the SPI side of the OpenSocial APIs. Usually your SPI will connect to your own social network, so that an OpenSocial app added to your website automatically uses your site’s data. However, it is possible to use data from another social network as well, should you prefer. Soon, we will provide a development kit with documentation and code to better support OpenSocial websites, along with a sample sandbox which implements the OpenSocial SPI using in-memory storage.

(I added the bold). I guess we’ll have to wait to see just how data from “another” social network might be used, or even how data from many social networks might be used.
[/Update2]

No embed code, so you’ll have to go there to see it.