W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webpayments@w3.org > August 2014

Re: Credentials Community Group

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2014 12:46:50 -0400
Message-ID: <53DBC47A.9040606@openlinksw.com>
To: Web Payments CG <public-webpayments@w3.org>
CC: public-webid <public-webid@w3.org>
On 7/31/14 3:43 AM, Anders Rundgren wrote:
> I don't feel too optimistic about this effort.
>
> This seems like a repetition of WebID-TLS, zero buy-in from the 
> browser-vendors.
>
> Without new stuff added to browsers I don't see how you can move the 
> market.
>
> Years ago I suggested creating a "Cloud Token":
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/icf-members/Csyd1NWcmog
>
> Unfortunately nobody liked the idea. When FIDO/Google did the same thing
> with U2F, *the entire industry* from Microsoft to ARM flocked around it.
> This is why browser-vendor buy-in remains the #1 problem.
>
> BTW, the fixation with Linked Data is contra-productive, there are a lot
> of use-cases that do not need or want to put credential data on the web.
> I.e. credential data should always be possible to supply "in-line" 

Linked Data == Web-like (or Webby) Structured Data Representation. It 
enables data to flow across data silos, via HTTP URIs. It is based on:

1. HTTP URIs
2. RDF language statements (which can be crafted using a variety of 
notations re., document content).

What does RDF uniquely add to structured data representation?

1. Use of IRIs
2. Semantics for Relationship Properties (Predicates, Relations etc..) 
that are both human and machine readable.

#1 means identifiers functioning like words, they do not implicitly 
resolve to what they denote.
#2 means you can just make up a relation on-the-fly that's 
comprehensible to both humans and machines, if you simply describe the 
relation semantics [1].

What do HTTP URIs add to RDF?

1. Use of HTTP URIs for denotation that resolves to connotation
2. RDF document become vehicles of connotation (sense) based on the 
Name/Address indirection that HTTP URIs enable .

#2 means Identifiers functioning like natural language terms i.e., they 
implicitly resolve to what they denote.

Linked Data isn't the issue here. The issue is understanding how to use 
AWWW to build solutions that work within the existing infrastructure 
provided by the Web. Just as the Web was constructed to leverage the 
infrastructure provided by the Internet.

You don't need Browser buy-in for anything since Web Browsers are simply 
client applications that leverage AWWW infrastructure.

The notion of applications and services change, due to the dexterous 
nature of AWWW, therein lies the real problem. We have infrastructure 
that's much smarter (by way of core design) than most presume, initially !!

To conclude, you can't build an W3C endorsed spec that turns AWWW on its 
head. That will fail during the review process, and if my some bizarre 
miracle it doesn't, it will implode, predictably, due to all of its 
points of data-silo-fication.

[1] http://linkeddata.uriburner.com/c/9DA62JIF -- about "H/T" a human 
and machine comprehensible relation I made on-the-fly, using RDF in 
Twitter, Facebook posts etc..

-- 
Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog 1: http://kidehen.blogspot.com
Personal Weblog 2: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
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




Received on Friday, 1 August 2014 16:47:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:03:38 UTC