How long we stick to a specific terminology to define what’s existing and what’s emergent is a challenge. Take the case of Social Networks. This term is as specific as your neighborhood and as vague as your religious affiliations. Actionable definition of social network is better understood in a larger context. Website can be a social network if it support key social activities, blog can be a social network if it uses enough social communication tools.

Fortunately there are smart people who do much better job of explaining these evolving definitions. Charlene Li wrote an excellent blog post on this topic. She did in-depth analysis of social network components. Her point is that social networks are going to be like ether. They will be everywhere. They will be everywhere as they are based on four key components which are pretty generic in nature.

She wrote:

There are four components of what I’m calling this idea of “ubiquitous social networks”: 1) Profiles; 2) Relationships; 3) Activities; and 4) Business models. These aren’t new — I wrote about the first three in my original report on social networks back in May 2004. But in the context of ubiquitous social networks, they will develop into the following: 1) Universal identities; 2) A single social graph; 3) Social context for activities; and 4) Social influence defining marketing value.

Different market players will focus at different component level. At MessageDance our focus has been to enrich third component of social networking equation. Which is creating compelling social context for activities. Sharing messages, photos, videos and files are all social activities.

On the other hand, it’s challenging to articulate the directional property of social networks. How much of these activities are happening BETWEEN social networks, activities targeted TOWARDS social networks and activities starting FROM social networks. In more technical language, are we going to be WRITING from social networks or READING from social networks? If it’s all in the air then probably this distinction doesn’t matter.

Users would prefer READ and WRITE capability from ALL destinations. Capability to express should be in the air as well. It’s not there completely. SHARE THIS and PUBLISH THIS options are not present everywhere. Lack of these features inhibit users desire to express themselves.

Later in the same post, Charlene elaborates on social context for activities:

3) Social context for activities. The brilliance of Facebook Platform is that it greatly expanded what people could do on social networks. The problem is that what people do is still pretty limited. Take a look at the top applications on Facebook – they can be roughly grouped into 1) managing/comparing/interacting with friends in a general context; 2) self-expression (FunWall, Bumper Sticker); 3) games; and 4) media preferences (iLike, Flikster). These are all fun and interesting, but they only begin to scratch the surface of what I do every day.

The biggest hole and opportunity, IMHO, is shopping. I research and buy things online every day, and with rare exception, these activities take place outside of Facebook. Facebook Beacon brings some of the information into News Feed, while a few shopping-oriented applications like StyleFeeder have potential. But by and large, social networks don’t figure into my shopping experiences.

But it could, and in a very significant want. Take for example, a book review that Dave McClure wrote on the book “The Mystery Of Capital” within the Books iRead application on Facebook. I happened to run into the review last year, but it wasn’t in context. Instead, I want to see reviews from my friends when I’m in the book buying process – on sites like Amazon.com and BN.com. It would mean a lot more for you to look at the Groundswell page on Amazon, and because you’re sign-in with your email address, be able to see any review a friend has written about the book – even if it’s on their personal blogs. That’s the epitome of social networks being like air, when it’s integrated into everything that you do.

Note the subtle note there -”even if it’s on their personal blogs“. There is growing expectation by users to express from any website. What we lack is the compelling context. These contexts have to be less destination-aware and more user-centric.

Once we have that scenario, are we going to call that anywhere-to-anywhere social interaction a SOCIAL NETWORK? Or something else? Any suggestions?