DAMM's report

1. What are the issues you found more innovative in reading Bouman et al. (2007)?

The more interesting for me was how they found the main characteristics of every social software and named as realms which can be found in every social software we use, I don’t know that all the social software that I used like Facebook, twitter, etcetera uses the realm of building identity by letting me personalize my profile until the point where I can say that it represents myself and/or my preferences similarly that I have in the real world.

Other thing important for me is that the people will give  value to the social software in terms of this value, for example LinkedIn that is used to show their curriculum and this give value to the person through social software and the social software gets value too.

2. Do you understand Wenger's (1988) claim that "Sociality cannot be designed; it can only be designed for"?  

It means that even if you create a social software using the Framework for Social Software you have not  guarantee a complete success, because you  cannot force the users to socialize in your network, the network has to add value to the user only then the user will start using your social software and start being social by relating to other persons through your social software which means it is the user who will make your social system sociably not the other way around, even then the user might use your social software in a way that you didn’t even intended to, this will be proof that the user is making social connections that work for them, and not necessary that the way that you imposed to them when you build the social software.

For example Twitter started by asking the simple question ‘What are you doing?’ but as the years go by, people starting using twitter to communicate others about what is happening in this time, and it was so big that in 2009 twitter change the main question ‘What are you doing?’ to ‘What is happening?’ therefore change the main objective of the social software by the user and its sociality, this proves that if you have a social software the sociality is in the user not in the social software.

3. Look at the list of references in the bibliography. Are you familiar with the System Theory sources they cite?

No, I didn’t read any of the authors they cite before reading this document, but I would like to read more about all these theories to learn more about the topic that is really interesting for me

4. What do you think of having blogs as references in this work?

That’s great for me because I never visited any of these blogs and the article provide the possibility to open my view about the different types of social blogs that the paper talk, although some of the links were not available or not accessible, my suggestion is to mention in the reference only the domain of the page that’s is referenced removing the rest of the parameters accompanying the URL address, in this way the reference will be always available and not dependent on a more specific address unless if the link it’s an article or a more specific post or entry the author should verify the link is available 

---