Re: Problem statement

Pardon the language if it deemed to be 'blunt' but, no such thing as 'self
sovereign'.

Some have tried [1] but i think the use of this term will worsen an
otherwise meaningful cause.

identity is made-up of several counterparts, and whilst i do not wish to
proclaim myself as the sole party considering such things (that may be
better defined by way of some form of official correspondence with the Web
Science group [2], perhaps amongst others - something that may well be
worthy of a call for papers and subsequent presentation by a multitude of
parties) the basic counterparts in the real-world appear to include both
pseudo-anonymity and declared pseudo-anonymity.

'declared pseudo-anonymity' relates to persona - where no person is
interested, nor have the time nor interest in understanding sufficiently a
declared identity in a manner that associates well (ie: as may be done
using a pointed graph) to better understand the persona in a manner where
it may be declared fully-understood by the recipient party.
further to these two important counterparts (what someone does when
believing their 'anonymous' and 'what others say about that person',
whether it be via an instrument produced by way of an incorporated or
natural legal entity) is the fact of evolution.

people grow, change, develop.  herein is the 'concept' that i think the
term 'self sovereign' attempts to consider from a compatibility point of
view.  This is very important as it denotes the mandate to use linked-data
related technology, or ideologically form the basis of decision making that
allows for the exclusion of such technology within any produced working
group specification.

herein; whilst i'm not sure of the term, and perhaps this could be better
work-shopped - i think it's about compatibility rather than necessarily any
particular deployment method, otherwise available scientifically (via
web-science, as an inferred field of profession wherein the concepts make
most sense in relation to the concept of 'science').

In Australia, reports have surfaced [3] that suggest our major telco will
have challenges that relate to the 'upgrade' of our infrastructure for
modern times.  This is of course an important issue for the telco, but a
less important issue for citizens who depend upon the 'upgrade' and the way
in which that will improve lives.

i use this as an example to illustrate perfectly reasonable considerations
made by participating entities; but therein also, the higher purpose /
importance, of broader considerations as they may be considered by others
impacted by scientific advancements.

If no one believes you, then the truth doesn't matter...

self-sovereign is like a man living in the bush, in a hut, without contact
to the rest of the world.  if a tree falls and no-one hears it, did it make
a sound..?

I hope my point is sufficiently illustrated, whilst not suggesting for a
moment that the ambition of such works are not the epicentre of my
motivations broadly speaking, over what is now, many years...

These works should provide a capable counterpart to something that is
bigger than what we produce here.  IMHO, if we make something that doesn't
work with the other counterparts; then we have failed.

Tim.H.



[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Sealand
[2] http://webscience.org/
[3]
http://www.news.com.au/technology/online/nbn/challenge-for-telstra-postnbn-moodys/news-story/9173052cb915b375162fe51cbfa766b0


On Wed, 3 Aug 2016 at 19:31 David Chadwick <d.w.chadwick@kent.ac.uk> wrote:

> Hi Steven
>
>
> On 03/08/2016 01:17, Steven Rowat wrote:
> > On 8/2/16 9:24 AM, David Chadwick wrote:
> >> Oops. Typo in previous message fixed
> >>
> >> How about changing the first sentence of the problem statement
> >>
> >> There is currently no widely used self-sovereign and privacy-enhancing
> >> standard for expressing and transacting verifiable claims (aka:
> >> credentials, attestations) via the Web.
> >>
> >> to
> >>
> >> There is currently no application independent self-sovereign and
> >> privacy-enhancing standard for expressing and transacting verifiable
> >> claims (aka: credentials, attestations) via the Web.
> >
> > Agreed on the meaning change, but even adding a hyphen into
> > application-independent (which IMO is necessary to be consistent and
> > grammatically correct) you've created a brain twister with six sub-parts
> > (three compounds x 2) modifying 'standard'. I find it hard to read and
> > understand, even the second or third time.
> >
> > How about recasting to give some space between the ideas, maybe:
> >
> > There is currently no application-independent standard for expressing
> > and transacting self-sovereign and privacy-enhancing verifiable claims
> > (aka: credentials, attestations) via the Web.
>
> I like this formulation, but there is no need to put a hyphen between
> application and independent
>
> regards
>
> David
>
> >
> > Or:
> > There is currently no self-sovereign and privacy-enhancing standard for
> > expressing and transacting application-independent verifiable claims
> > (aka: credentials, attestations) via the Web.
> >
> > Steven
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>