W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-credentials@w3.org > November 2016

Re: Verifiable Claims Telecon Minutes for 2016-11-29

From: Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2016 23:10:39 +0000
Message-ID: <CAM1Sok2+JjvpQdba1ACCAqba_biTG4H0+aH26sqRDczZ+5oXqA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor)" <rse@rfc-editor.org>, public-credentials@w3.org
Hi Heather,

Is this a "hypermedia package" concept?

The first consideration was whether i could identify a clear distinction
from EPUB3 related works...

Thereafter;

My thoughts were that an array of considerations have been made in past
about the means in which to support preservation, so that, in future,
someone might be able to review old work even though the platform
technologies have since developed.

I've recently considered the needs of archivists (ie: archive.org ) for
content that includes RDF. It seems reasonable to assume that the ontology
data should be included for preservation purposes.

Other considerations in review included the scope of 'what is a digital
publication' as that term could be used for anything from a Augmented
Reality App, through to a HbbTV Package (a really, big use-case), a CMS (of
sorts, or application that web-application such as are being developed
within solid[1]) which in-turn may relate well to your 'going off line'
requirements (as it may be that SoLiD related work may provide a lifecycle
solution that could support long-term independent processing of compiled
'HyperMedia' packages.) - perhaps also an update to the current elearning
package format?

We have some very old books in our libraries and whilst not all cultures
used books, the misunderstandings made where that was the case usually
didn't help those who didn't have a long-term preservation format for their
societies body of knowledge.   I was recently challenged with the idea of
why an indigenous cultural computer game environment should be installed in
the library not easily considering the merit of the concept where such
indigenous people communicated their heritage via ceremony (rather than
books); however even when i recognized the error in my ways, it's still
difficult to get even the cost of the institutions electricity bills put
towards this type of addition to the library, and therein a hopefully
helpful set of anecdotes about the importance of your field of works more
broadly.

I also note; that schemaorg currently lacks ontology for genres, which of
course covers an array of publication formats (text, video, audio, etc.)
and whilst more sophisticated than simply declaring works to be 'fake' (as
they may not fit into a schema with lesser ontological support for context)
the need to ensure we're not forging modern methods for 'book burning' may
also well relate to both the opportunities in how credentials works may
take your use-cases into it's requirements (which may also fit into the
education area quite well, auto-generation of bibliographies /
http://dig.csail.mit.edu/2009/Clipboard/ styled functionality has been on
the wish-list for an array of use-cases (including heritage) for quite
sometime ).

I guess, overall,

Is the intention of the definition for a web-publication support the
concepts outlined; https://www.w3.org/2007/09/map/main.jpg ???

I envisage the use of ontologies in a decentralised (ie: not within a
social-network silo) approach may offer means to improve preservation
methodologies.  I also wonder what the implication is for other technology
opportunities that are not so 'preservation friendly'.

Who thinks about how to review a block-chain in 100 years time as a
historian? will it even be possible?  I know of applications built for
computers only 15 years old that don't work anymore.  I have a feeling
mobile applications have an even shorter timespan?

Hope something herein helps.

re: CREDENTIALS - A Digital Preservation Credential UseCase is seemingly
important.  Ie: the ability to issue access to something for the purpose of
keeping it for historical purposes, indeed privately (inc 'until death'
styled use-case), publicly, specified use, etc.

Tim.H.

[1] https://github.com/solid/solid-apps

On Wed., 30 Nov. 2016, 7:31 am Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor), <
rse@rfc-editor.org> wrote:

On 11/29/16 12:18 PM, Steven Rowat wrote:
> On 11/29/16 9:32 AM, msporny@digitalbazaar.com wrote:
>> Thanks to Manu Sporny for scribing this week! The minutes for this
>>  week's Verifiable Claims telecon are now available:
>>
> ...
>> Shane McCarron: Here are some dpub use cases:
>> http://w3c.github.io/dpub-pwp-ucr/index.html
>
> I'd like to note that after scanning through the above link to "Web
> Publications..." that even though there are, it's true, many rich
> use-cases, the large majority of the effort in the document is for the
> benefit of large publishing entities. Perhaps that's not surprising,
> since an Adobe employee is one of the Editors.
>
> For example, the first set of usage cases given in section 2.1.1, concern
> only three:
>    •" A large, multidisciplinary, Web-based journal...
>    • " Educational publications...
>    • " BigBoxCo, a large technology company with extensive “in-house”
> documentation... "
>
> This quote from section 3.2 is representative:
>
> "Req. 19: The distribution of Packaged Web Publications should respect
> the existing processes and expectations of professional publishing
> channels as well as ad-hoc methods of distribution (eg. email). "
>
> There is little mention of Authors, and no mention of needing to trust
> them.
>
> In terms of Verifiable Claims, they give only a single use
> case under "3.5.2 Authenticity—Origin of a Publication", for a Lawyer
> needing to trust "LegalPublisher Ltd."
>
> I think that's because their focus, appropriately enough since it's
> titled "Web Publications Use Cases and Requirements", is on
> Publishers. And in the corporate silo publishers' model, you trust the
> silo (whether it is Fox News or Penguin Books or the Guardian).
>
> But if Authors can be Verified and distributed individually through
> the Internet, and paid for their work, to what extent will
> traditional, as the above document puts it, "existing processes and
> expectations of professional publishing channels" be necessary?
> Nobody knows.  :-)

De-lurking for a moment...

If you'd be willing to note something to this effect in the issues list,
I know we'd really appreciate the feedback!

https://github.com/w3c/dpub-pwp-ucr/issues

-Heather Flanagan
(one of the editors)
Received on Tuesday, 29 November 2016 23:11:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 11 July 2018 21:19:32 UTC