- From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2016 14:15:44 -0400
- To: Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
- Cc: public-rww <public-rww@w3.org>, public-webid <public-webid@w3.org>, W3C Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org>, public-declarative-apps@w3.org
- Message-ID: <61f224c6-a6af-40ef-b67e-303fcb31b222@openlinksw.com>
On 8/17/16 9:01 AM, Timothy Holborn wrote: > > Dbpedia Is a rather good app. > > Openlink Virtuoso a very mature platform, with an array of access > methods built-in. > > Do RWW apps still work with Openlink? > Again, Virtuoso (the product by OpenLink) is based on open standards. Thus, if you are doing RWW using open standards it works. Examples of open standards for RWW include: 1. WebDAV 2. LDP 3. SPARQL Graph Protocol 4. SPARQL 1.1 INSERT, UPDATE, and DELETE. If you want to do that securely using verifiable Identity and attributed-base acls, it also handles that using open standards such as: 1. HTTP URIs 2. TLS 3. Logic (expressed in RDF statements). 1-3 enable WebID+TLS+Delegation whereby you can actually work with ACLs and not be encumbered by Web Browsers and TLS issues i.e., negate the hurdles that have been problematic for basic WebID+TLS. Live demos: [1] http://osde.openlinksw.com -- an RDF Statement Editor [2] https://medium.com/virtuoso-blog/web-logic-sentences-and-the-magic-of-being-you-e2a719d01f73#.ba5tlg2ds -- RWW and ACLs . Kingsley > > Or how about the oidc branch related works? > > Did we get anywhere with http-signatures? > > Timh. > > > On Wed, 17 Aug 2016, 10:54 PM Melvin Carvalho > <melvincarvalho@gmail.com <mailto:melvincarvalho@gmail.com>> wrote: > > On 17 August 2016 at 10:40, Martynas Jusevičius > <martynas@graphity.org <mailto:martynas@graphity.org>> wrote: > > My 2 cents: Linked Data is great, but what it lacks is a > theoretical > model below it, on which other efforts can build. Of the W3C > specs, > only RDF has semantics, while SPARQL has an algebra. Why not > LDP? That > has produced a myriad of LD stacks with duplicating features > and low > interoperability, both in terms of composition of software > libraries > and run-time LD calls, mostly on the write side. > > Someone has said earlier on this list, that (software) > engineering is > not science. Well, maybe we should turn it into science then. > And use > it to produce one generic Web API (read-write Linked Data), > instead of > the "API economy" which we currently have. > > Basically, Linked Data should have provable semantics. We think we > have found a declarative way to do it, which actually brings > Linked > Data closer to the original ontology-driven Semantic Web > vision. But > it involves SPARQL, which many Linked Data people seem to have an > aversion for (yet many of the same people champion JSON, which > is an > immaterial and orthogonal implementation detail in this big > picture). > > We call the approach Linked Data Templates, and are currently > working > on its semantics. Please take a look: > https://github.com/AtomGraph/Linked-Data-Templates/blob/master/XML%20London%202016%20paper/Linked%20Data%20Templates.pdf > > > I'm all for the declarative approach! > > I think what some people have alluded to here is that to give > technology the best chance, you have to find a sweet spot. > > It has to be generic enough to solve a large number of use cases > and practical enough to get a developer and user base. It needs a > development team behind it and some specification work / > documentation. The main issue I see is that there are very few > resources in this area. One reason it's taken more than 10 years > (or 20?) to get as far as we have. > > Inevitably it's about finding compromises to get to a spec good > enough to solve the important use cases (with large coverage), and > with enough mind share and developer momentum to be worth the time > investment. Competing stacks are something we want to minimize > simply because we lack developers to really make a good go of each. > > LDP I think was good in that we needed to webize the file system, > and it was a pretty good attempt at that. Of course, many people > will have differing views on what LDP is for. This is really > useful and Solid simply adds access control to that, because a > file system without permissions is less useful. > > But what we have in linked data now is just about a stack capable > of a whole new generation of apps. Yes we are held back by legacy > technology which means developers have to work that much harder to > make the case. But as soon as people start to see things working, > and what can be done, it is possible to solve our one major > problem which is lack of developers. Id encourage those > interested in LD to try and collaborate more and work on interop. > Of course this is really really hard, because in a distributed > environment there are more moving parts, and this increases the > testing complexity not double but an order of magnitude. And > pretty much no one has time to do that kind of testing -- we need > a solution here -- and for years I've not been able to think of > any, other than to suggest having a 'head of integration' in teams. > > Until then I think we really need to try and get at least one > project to the degree of maturity where it can challenge and > overtake the best we've seen on web 1.0 + 2.0 and bring it to a > next generation distributed paradigm. RDF is great. Linked Data > is great. SPARQL is a great query language. LDP is a great tool > to work with file systems, of file system like things. Solid is a > great tool to add identity and permissions, and realtime (which > sadly isnt working on android right now). We dont really need > much more than this, just encourage people to build apps! > > > > > Best, > > > Martynas > atomgraph.com <http://atomgraph.com> > > > On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 4:24 AM, Timothy Holborn > <timothy.holborn@gmail.com <mailto:timothy.holborn@gmail.com>> > wrote: > > Melvin / Henry (or TimBL) > > > > Can someone ask (or respond) and tell me what the key > principles are that > > TimBL wants to achieve in producing SoLiD (like?) alternatives. > > > > What are these key qualities... > > > > I imagine he would / could summarise it in a page or so, as > he has done with > > other concepts in the past. > > > > I do not believe he has a rigid view that SoLiD is the only > path for the web > > into the future. A comment i am reminded of, is one of > creating pieces and > > not forcing the everything to be used; but hoping > counterparts can and will > > be. > > > > I see work that's been done over a VERY long period of time; > and i think the > > semantic inferencer that has somehting like HTTP signatures > protecting > > algorithms shared using something like > linked-media-fragments to services > > were people are storing their private and sensitive media > objects that they > > want to be processed by algorithms produced by incredible > scientists around > > the world - well, that kinda stuff is amongst the 'to-do' > list IMHO. > > > > TimH> > > > > On Wed, 17 Aug 2016 at 09:31 Melvin Carvalho > <melvincarvalho@gmail.com <mailto:melvincarvalho@gmail.com>> > > wrote: > >> > >> On 16 August 2016 at 20:23, Kaliya IDwoman > <kaliya-id@identitywoman.net <mailto:kaliya-id@identitywoman.net>> > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 5:51 AM, Adrian Hope-Bailie > >>> <adrian@hopebailie.com <mailto:adrian@hopebailie.com>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> What is the business case for a service provider to adopt > Solid? > >>> > >>> > >>> 1) first off I'm super skeptical of any project that is > >>> university/research based it is notoriously difficult to > get those to escape > >>> the lab as it where. Everyone has incentive to "publish" > for their > >>> degrees/professorships - zero incentive to make a usable, > market > >>> worthy/ready product (I don't just mean in a business way > relative to market > >>> but adoptable in the marketplace of tools and software) > >>> > >>> 2) The Personal Data Ecosystem Consortium that I founded > in 2010 > >>> http://www.pde.cc has a whole range of companies that have > been working on > >>> similar technology and ideas for well over 5 years. So it > isn't new - the > >>> ideas around personal data stores/banks etc and putting > people at the center > >>> of their own data lives go back at least to Johannes' > Ernst work (See the > >>> top of my twitter for a diagram he drew in 2005-6. And > the Augmented Social > >>> Network White Paper which itself and antecedents in other > work. > >>> http://asn.planetwork.net > >>> > >>> 3) Please show me what Tim has lead that has gotten to > market besides > >>> HTML back in the day? > >> > >> > >> Skepticism is healthy. But can sometimes be overdone. > >> > >> Tim didnt just get html to market. He also created the > first browser > >> (editor). He created HTTP. He created. He created the > first web server. > >> And after that he created linked data. And now Solid. > This is all really > >> one project known as the world wide web. > >> > >> Fun fact: when presenting these things to the hypertext > conference when it > >> was all working, the paper was rejected from the main > conference and only > >> allowed "poster track" > >> > >> See: > >> > >> https://www.w3.org/2004/Talks/w3c10-HowItAllStarted/?n=16 > >> > >> Simple fact is that Tim thought about the web for 2 decades > before > >> releasing it. Almost no one got it then. Solid is the > conclusion of that > >> work, and almost no one gets it now. My hope is that > people will start to > >> appreciate it when they see it in action! :) > >> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Why would Google, Facebook or anyone that build's their > business on user > >>>> data choose to let users take that away? > >>> > >>> > >>> They don't have a choice because the European regulatory > framework the > >>> General Data Protection Regulation that comes into force > in 2018 is > >>> mandating it. > >>> You also have a whole group of companies working on > building businesses > >>> around this premise and one finally finally got funding - > >>> > https://techcrunch.com/2016/06/30/digi-me-bags-6-1m-to-put-users-in-the-driving-seat-for-sharing-personal-data/ > >>> Meeco https://meeco.me/ from Australia is doing awesome > work (Both there > >>> and in the UK) as is MyDex https://mydex.org/ > >>> > >>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Who will offer users a comparable service to these silos > that attracts > >>>> them away but adopts Solid and can still make enough > money to survive > >>>> competing with the biggest tech companies in the world? > >>>> > >>>> The point is not whether or not the architecture is easy > the point is > >>>> whether it has the potential to make anybody any money > because if it doesn't > >>>> then I think you will have a hard time persuading people > to use it, no > >>>> matter how well it scales. > >>> > >>> > >>> We have to really get into the weeds of figuring how value > flows in these > >>> networks to make it work for the parties involved and be > sustainable in the > >>> long run. It will take way more then "architecture". > >>> > >>> > >>> If you all want to dive into some of the nitty gritty I > invite you to the > >>> Internet Identity Workshop - > http://www.internetidentityworkshop.org > >>> > >>> :) Kaliya > >>> > >>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On 15 August 2016 at 14:11, Melvin Carvalho > <melvincarvalho@gmail.com <mailto:melvincarvalho@gmail.com>> > >>>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On 15 August 2016 at 14:08, Timothy Holborn > <timothy.holborn@gmail.com <mailto:timothy.holborn@gmail.com>> > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Solid isn't finished yet. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Solid is at version 0.6 rather than 1.0. > >>>>> > >>>>> But I dont really know what more can be added to it to > get it to v1.0. > >>>>> Im using it on a daily basis and it works fine. Some > people are > >>>>> perfectionists I suppose :) > >>>>> > >>>>> In any case its IMHO light years ahead of where the rest > of the web is, > >>>>> even if you only take small parts of it and use it. > >>>>> > >>>>> You can also argue that solid will never be finished, in > the sense > >>>>> that, the web will never be "finished". > >>>>> > >>>>> Its definitely something that can be used today. > >>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Mon, 15 Aug 2016, 10:07 PM Melvin Carvalho > >>>>>> <melvincarvalho@gmail.com > <mailto:melvincarvalho@gmail.com>> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On 15 August 2016 at 11:50, Adrian Hope-Bailie > >>>>>>> <adrian@hopebailie.com <mailto:adrian@hopebailie.com>> > wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> From the article: "The question is whether > architecture will be > >>>>>>>> enough." > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> The answer is no. > >>>>>>>> We live in world where few ideas succeed without a > strong business > >>>>>>>> case. The architecture is the easy part. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Architecture is deceptively difficult to get right. > The vast > >>>>>>> majority if systems start to fall over as they scale. > The web and REST are > >>>>>>> two architectures that buck that trend and just get > stronger as they scale. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Solid is the next evolution in that architectural > trend, imho, > >>>>>>> because it simply embraces the points that made the > web great, and extends > >>>>>>> it a little bit, while being 100% backwards > compatible. Right now, it's the > >>>>>>> only system that I know of, with this property, in > fact, nothing else is > >>>>>>> close. So this in itself, the ability to scale to > billions of users, is a > >>>>>>> business case. Quietly facebook adopted the social > graph approach to the > >>>>>>> web, and web architectural principles with their graph > protocol, and also an > >>>>>>> implementation of WebID. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I think what's true is that few ideas succeed, because > simply, we > >>>>>>> have a lot of ideas and a lot of competition. Having > a business can help, > >>>>>>> but the right architecture is the magic sauce to get > through those > >>>>>>> scalability barriers. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I personally think Solid is the business opportunity > of a lifetime, > >>>>>>> perhaps even bigger than the first web. Im certainly > investing on that > >>>>>>> basis. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On 14 August 2016 at 10:49, Timothy Holborn > >>>>>>>> <timothy.holborn@gmail.com > <mailto:timothy.holborn@gmail.com>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Hi Anders, > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I'm using this email to respond to both [1] in > creds; in addition > >>>>>>>>> to the below, with some lateral considerations. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> See this video where Mr Gates and Mr Musk are > discussing in China > >>>>>>>>> AI [2]. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I haven't fully considered the implications, whilst > i've certainly > >>>>>>>>> been considering the issue; i have not fully > considered it, and as modern > >>>>>>>>> systems become subject to government contracts as > may be the case with > >>>>>>>>> enterprise solutions such as those vended by IBM > [3], may significantly > >>>>>>>>> lower the cost for government / enterprise, in > seeking to achieve very > >>>>>>>>> advanced outcomes - yet i'm unsure the full > awareness of how these systems > >>>>>>>>> work, what potential exists for unintended outcomes > when work by > >>>>>>>>> web-scientists[4][5] becomes repurposed without > their explicit and full > >>>>>>>>> consideration of the original designers for any > extended use of their works, > >>>>>>>>> what the underlying considerations are by those who > are concerned [6][7] and > >>>>>>>>> how these systems may interact with more advanced > HID as i've kinda tried to > >>>>>>>>> describe recently to an audience here [8] and has > been further discussed > >>>>>>>>> otherwise [9] [10]. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I'm a little concerned about the under-resourcing > that seems to > >>>>>>>>> plague Manu's / Dave's original vision (that > included WebDHT) to the > >>>>>>>>> consultative approach that i believed had alot of > merit in how it may > >>>>>>>>> interact with the works of RWW at the time > (alongside WebID) which have al > >>>>>>>>> progressed, yet, not seemingly to a solution that i > think is 'fit for > >>>>>>>>> purpose' in attending to the issues before us. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I have considered the need for people to own their > own biometric > >>>>>>>>> signatures. I have considered the work by > 'mico-project'[11] seems to be a > >>>>>>>>> good supporter of these future works, particularly > given the manner in which > >>>>>>>>> these works support LDP and other related > technologies... > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> But the future is still unknown, and what worries me > most; is those > >>>>>>>>> who know most about A.I. may not be able to speak > about it as a citizen or > >>>>>>>>> stakeholder in the manner defined by way of a magna > carta, such as is the > >>>>>>>>> document that hangs on my wall when making such > considerations more broadly > >>>>>>>>> in relation to my contributory work/s. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> i understand this herein; contains an array of > fragments; yet, am > >>>>>>>>> trying to format schema that leads others to the > spot in which i'm > >>>>>>>>> processing broader ideas around what, where and how; > progress may be > >>>>>>>>> accelerated and indeed adopted by those capable of > pushing it forward. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I remember the github.com/Linkeddata > <http://github.com/Linkeddata> team (in RWW years) wrote a > >>>>>>>>> bunch of things in GO, which is what the IPFS > examples showcase, and without > >>>>>>>>> providing exhaustive links, i know Vint has been > working in the field of > >>>>>>>>> inter-planetary systems [13], therein also > understanding previous issues > >>>>>>>>> relating to JSON-LD support (as noted in [1] or [14] > ), which in-turn may > >>>>>>>>> also relate to other statements made overtime about > my view that some of the > >>>>>>>>> works incubated by credentials; but not subject to > IG or potential WG > >>>>>>>>> support at present - may be better off being > developed within the WebID > >>>>>>>>> community as an additional constituent of work that > may work interoperable > >>>>>>>>> with WebID-TLS related systems. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Too many Ideas!!! > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> (perhaps some have merit...) > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Tim.H. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> [1] > >>>>>>>>> > https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-credentials/2016Aug/0045.html > >>>>>>>>> [2] https://youtu.be/TRpjhIhpuiU?t=16m26s > >>>>>>>>> [3] http://blog.softlayer.com/tag/watson > >>>>>>>>> [4] http://webscience.org/ > >>>>>>>>> [5] > https://twitter.com/WebCivics/status/492707794760392704 > >>>>>>>>> [6] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tV8EOQNYC-8 > >>>>>>>>> [7] > >>>>>>>>> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Letter_on_Artificial_Intelligence > >>>>>>>>> [8] (perhaps not the best reference, but has a bunch > of ideas in > >>>>>>>>> it: > >>>>>>>>> > https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1RzczQPfygLuowu-WPvaYyKQB0PsSF2COKldj1mjktTs/edit?usp=sharing > >>>>>>>>> [9] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTqF3w2yrZI > >>>>>>>>> [10] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_x_VpAjim6g > >>>>>>>>> [11] http://www.mico-project.eu/technology/ > >>>>>>>>> [12] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CMxDNuuAiQ > >>>>>>>>> [13] > >>>>>>>>> > http://www.wired.com/2013/05/vint-cerf-interplanetary-internet/ > >>>>>>>>> [14] https://github.com/ipfs/ipfs/issues/36 > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On Fri, 12 Aug 2016 at 14:47 Anders Rundgren > >>>>>>>>> <anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com > <mailto:anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> On 2016-08-11 15:16, Melvin Carvalho wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> > Really good article, mentions Solid and other > technologies. > >>>>>>>>>> > WebID is mentioned by the author in the comments > too ... > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > http://www.digitaltrends.com/web/ways-to-decentralize-the-web/ > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> One of the problems with the Web is that there is > no easy way > >>>>>>>>>> letting a provider know where you come from (=where > your Web resources are). > >>>>>>>>>> This is one reason why OpenID rather created more > centralization. The same > >>>>>>>>>> problem is in payments where the credit-card number > is used to find your > >>>>>>>>>> bank through complex centralized registers. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Both of these use-cases can be addressed by having > URLs + other > >>>>>>>>>> related data such as keys in something like a > digital wallet which you carry > >>>>>>>>>> around. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> There is a snag though: Since each use-case needs > special logic, > >>>>>>>>>> keys, attributes etc. it seems hard (probably > impossible), coming up with a > >>>>>>>>>> generic Web-browser solution making such schemes > rely on extending the > >>>>>>>>>> Web-browser through native-mode platform-specific code. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Although W3C officials do not even acknowledge the mere > >>>>>>>>>> existence(!) of such work, the progress on native > extensions schemes has > >>>>>>>>>> actually been pretty good: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webappsec/2016Aug/0005.html > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> This is approach to decentralization is BTW not > (anymore) a > >>>>>>>>>> research project, it is fully testable in close to > production-like settings > >>>>>>>>>> today: > >>>>>>>>>> https://test.webpki.org/webpay-merchant > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> The native extensions also support a > >>>>>>>>>> > _decentralized_development_model_for_Web_technology_, > something which is > >>>>>>>>>> clearly missing in world where a single browser > vendor has 80% of the mobile > >>>>>>>>>> browser market! > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Anders > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>> > > > -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen Founder & CEO OpenLink Software (Home Page: http://www.openlinksw.com) Medium Blog: https://medium.com/@kidehen Blogspot Blog: http://kidehen.blogspot.com Twitter Profile: https://twitter.com/kidehen Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen Personal WebID: http://kingsley.idehen.net/dataspace/person/kidehen#this
Attachments
- application/pkcs7-signature attachment: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Received on Wednesday, 17 August 2016 18:16:16 UTC