Re: Problem statement

I find the words of obama to be inspirational as always [1].  may not work
immediately, but our role is as technology futurists?

certainly it's not to deny opportunities otherwise available should we be
'open' in our 'standards' definitions processes...

within our; and, for our, global community...

Tim.H.

[1] https://youtu.be/wfsIZioIpdI?t=5m2s

On Wed, 3 Aug 2016 at 20:30 Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
wrote:

> I'll organise a conference if necessary...  Consider the response an
> 'expression of interest'...
>
> Web Science:  identity - define it in linked-data terms?
>
> papers welcomed... :)
>
> Tim.H.
>
> On Wed, 3 Aug 2016 at 20:22 Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> with all due respect;
>>
>> Who are you without a government issued birth certificate? where can you
>> travel without a government issued passport?
>>
>> A nonsense alternative doesn't help provide diversity, particularly where
>> that may be considered by the uninitiated, a 'Polarized' alternative,
>> rather than perhaps what may be a diversification of utility approach by
>> what is created.
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRGhrYmUjU4
>> https://vimeo.com/30416090
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qByftcYTP3E
>> http://www.ted.com/talks/tim_berners_lee_a_magna_carta_for_the_web
>>
>> The long-term works of RWW[1], CrossCloud[2] and more recently SoLiD[3]
>> led off less structured works perhaps best referenced by TimBL's Design
>> Issues [4] notes, alongside others such as Ted's Xanadu works [5] all
>> highlight something that is very different to the RDBMS past as is in-part
>> considered in TimBL's presentation about the evolution of Web Science [6]
>> and certainly also the evangelism provided by Kingsley as may be discovered
>> in various notes [7].
>>
>> The WebID[8] group / concept is something that founded my initiation into
>> W3C CG Land, and whilst it is my belief that on a scientific level - a TLS
>> certificate embedded in a machine - denotes the machine, rather than some
>> other formatted FOAF document; we have not as yet, despite best efforts by
>> all involved; been able to build a bridge that highlights the opportunity
>> defined for the most-part by Manu - in the potential use of
>> HTTP-SIGNATURES[9] and Web-DHT [10] to provide contributory solutions
>> towards the previously noted / referenced solutions that are emerging as
>> alternatives to traditional 'web 2.0' architecture, something that has been
>> well-authored by the likes of Jeff Sayre [11] with modern mindfulness of
>> both LDP [12] and the works towards LDP Next [13].
>>
>> IMHO; we're in the engine room...   Lets make sure it works ;)
>>
>> 'walking with footsteps, in the presence of god' - i don't care which
>> book or means in which that is meaningful to humans...
>>
>> An alternative to 'agent' is possible IMHO; and i think compatibility
>> with that potential future, is something that is sought by at least some of
>> the parties involved.  I think many people are doing their best to
>> contribute towards something that is bigger than what they're capable of
>> doing without being inclusive; i'm simply attempting to suggest a better
>> structure around how a more positive outcome may be achieved.
>>
>> prior to the evolution, let alone the establishment of the credentials
>> group - WebID TLS was a very big thing.  Times have changed and we have the
>> means to adapt and support what we know to be possible...
>>
>> perhaps as noted previously; a 'call for papers' around seeking from the
>> organisational / academic world; their definition of 'identity' from a 'web
>> science' viewpoint, may be really very, very helpful for a multitude of
>> important stakeholders who are charged with a very difficult task; in
>> progressing this work for the betterment of humanity.
>>
>> Tim.H.
>>
>>
>> [1] https://www.w3.org/community/rww/
>> [2] http://crosscloud.org/
>> [3] http://solid.mit.edu/
>> [4] https://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/
>> [5] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=En_2T7KH6RA
>> [6] https://twitter.com/WebCivics/status/492707794760392704
>> [7] http://www.slideshare.net/kidehen/
>> [8] https://www.w3.org/wiki/WebID
>> [9] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-cavage-http-signatures-03
>> [10] http://opencreds.org/specs/source/webdht/
>> [11]
>> http://jeffsayre.com/2010/09/13/web-3-0-powering-startups-to-become-smartups/
>>
>> [12] https://www.w3.org/TR/ldp/
>> [13] https://www.w3.org/community/ldpnext/
>>
>> On Wed, 3 Aug 2016 at 20:00 David Chadwick <d.w.chadwick@kent.ac.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> self-sovereign is already defined in the charter as
>>>
>>> A design principle for verifiable claims where the holder of a
>>> verifiable claim is in complete control of their identifier, where their
>>> verifiable claims are stored, and how they are used.
>>>
>>> So it does exist :-)
>>>
>>> David
>>>
>>> On 03/08/2016 10:48, Timothy Holborn wrote:
>>> > 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
>>> > <mailto: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
>>> >     >
>>> >     >
>>> >     >
>>> >     >
>>> >
>>>
>>