W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xg-webid@w3.org > February 2011

RE: Question: User Story -- Bootstrapping Facebook

From: Peter Williams <home_pw@msn.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2011 08:11:28 -0800
Message-ID: <SNT143-w3266FC9AB68A177F2E0EB792EF0@phx.gbl>
CC: "public-xg-webid@w3.org" <public-xg-webid@w3.org>

in summary, I think you said: its the combination with the other semantic vocabularies that makes the difference. Their prominence is the core value proposition , since there is an entire space of value-add that Anyone can define and easily execute. Oh, and here are the core theormes sufficient to be make a better public space than it is now, at global scale.
 
its not RDF. Its not de-ferencing #tags (or not). Its not certs. Its only "a bit" about the security enforcing therems of the flow. We assume those bits of technology work, enabling logical programming gthen to exploit the metadata, as a giant interpreter on a shared computing machine with a billion (or two) nodes.
 
we have the ability to let the person or machine, or machine/channel speeaking for a person, make "the authenticated-statement".
 
All we really have to do is take the Birrel/Lampson theory/logic of authentication and do it at web scale, first using the commodity stuff in the browser and web "as it is". (next year, the commodity stuff can be improved... using the following topics of improvement...)
 
Since I could not do so even if I wanted to, we dont even have to work out the formal theorems. They are done, already. They just need "interpreting" for the web, rather than the "distributed network operating system on a LAN"
 
Politically:
 
there is a solid theory, unreproachable in security circles
its excess of formal methods translate directly into w3c goals about delivering logic programming to the masses
Its theorems already directly map onto if not talk directly about SSL, certs, trust chains in namespaces, and SSL handshake sequences
There are side-effects that others want perhaps even more than the security/privacy asix - since to the axis of "general assurance to the public space its adding "gravitas" - due to its very rigor
 

 


Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2011 15:22:04 +0100
Subject: Re: Question: User Story -- Bootstrapping Facebook
From: ltorokjr@gmail.com
To: home_pw@msn.com
CC: public-xg-webid@w3.org


2011/2/11 Peter Williams <home_pw@msn.com>


why would they come? (Im playing the hard ball.)

Whether they will come or not boils down to WebIDs value prop. 

An example: The is an accelerating adoption of the GoodRelations semantic vocabulary that was invented by a university professor. Search engines that make sense of that sematic data produce more accurate results, e-commerce sites marking up their data can boost sales. There mutual benefit emerges from the fact that everybody speaks the same language and this language can be spoken by everyone. (being open)

Now I can see that an internet scale identity system that WebID aims to become, can have a very appealing value prop for e-commerce. (thinking of transactions, attribution, etc.)

This might be achieved by numerous ways, but since most participants believe in the web as integration platform, we are trying to come up with a webby solution.
 

 
the use of certs is discredited (evil PKI, unworkable PKI, even infocard folks actively market AGAINST client certs)
 
the APIs for processing the graphs "natively" in windows (done the windows say, not unix on windows) are unsupported, aging rapidly, and have to compete for attention with f# and linq from microsoft own properly supported tool chain
 
the core techniqe is only what lotus notes did years ago (ping back on a notes file, to see if a cert is present, to validate it, during notes client/server auth).
 
How does one sell against that? (since there are 500 professionall salesman in this field, flogging their own variant).
 
The answer in my mind has to be about: picking the right point onf the commodization curve, knowing hardware is going through an aligned shift point, mobility and devices are changing, such as inforcard proves client authn can work with SSL with advanced UI, legacy users can be brought on board with 0.01 cost (using the static file).
 
Now one is starting to craft the story that a VC can start to evaluate, since there is "intelligence". I look at W3c as a  VC "research firm", where the VCs are the investement elements of the major W3C members trying to bet a hundred million here, or there, or... and needing to orchestarte the eco-system so the bet pays off.


:))))

 

 
 

 


Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2011 11:27:55 +0100
From: ltorokjr@gmail.com
To: jeff@sayremedia.com
CC: henry.story@bblfish.net; scorlosquet@gmail.com; nathan@webr3.org; melvincarvalho@gmail.com; public-xg-webid@w3.org
Subject: Re: Question: User Story -- Bootstrapping Facebook





2011/2/10 <jeff@sayremedia.com>

Another thought:

As the social networking space is just one of many special use cases for
WebID, our conversations should focus on WebID as an authenticating


Very much so, e-Commerce could be another huge field with numerous applications. I think demoing in this field could get quite a few big players with $$$ on board.

Regards,

Laszlo
 
protocol, whether that is for single-sign on, for identifying and
verifying the owner of a given resource, or for establishing a Web of
Trust for a given user. How this is accomplished with WebID is what
matters. How or even if a given existing social network implements WebID
is a different issue.

Jeff

http://jeffsayre.com/




> In the social networking space, it is important to remember that a webpage
> is dynamically assembled from disparate data resources. The content
> displayed is an amalgam of contributions from different people. Thus it is
> rarely the case that the contents of an entire page will be owned and
> controlled by a single person (entity).
>
> It is also important to remember that social networking is about user
> streams--the assemblage of content contributions that coalesce to create a
> conversation, to capture interaction between users. That is what makes it
> a social experience.
>
>> On 10 Feb 2011, at 15:11, Stéphane Corlosquet wrote:
>>>
>>> The fact that on the Web, you do not know who authored each bit of a
>>> page.
>
> With regards to not knowing “who authored each bit of a page”, that can
> easily be addressed. Each piece of datum can be marked up with a WebID to
> indicate the owner of a particular content contribution. So, even on a
> given user’s profile page, any data that was not created by and is not
> owned or controlled by the profile owner, can clearly be indicated. Of
> course, implementing that facility would be up to the overall platform
> owners.
>
>> On February 10, 2011 9:39, Henry Story wrote:
>>>
>>> (This thread is a bit skizzo. Here we are in the part of this thread
>>> giving advice to FB)
>
> With regards to discussions about FB, I believe that we should not make
> any assumptions about what they will or will not do when it comes to
> WebID. They created their own customized ontology with OGP instead of
> using the already available open ontologies. Some speculate that they may
> be trying to “win” the identity wars by turning their platform into the
> largest, proprietary identity protocol broker on the Web. They will do
> what is in their best business interest. If WebID serves a business
> purpose, then they will implement it to the extent that they see fit. All
> we can do is put forth a series of WebID use cases and then let the
> various social networks, including FB,  decide how and if they will use
> it.
>
> Since the Social Web is about the global conversation and usage space and
> not just about what happens within a single, often siloed, social network,
> I suggest that at this time we concentrate more on the fundamentals of
> WebID, and not on how a particular space may or may not implement WebID.
> Our WebID use cases should provide a sufficient width and breadth so that
> current and future open and proprietary Web-based systems can properly
> evaluate the virtues of WebID for their specific use.
>
> Whereas I do agree that conversations like this are informative and useful
> in helping us craft our WebID use cases, I think that trying to solve very
> specific and unique technical WebID implementations for a particular,
> proprietary player, such as FB, may not be in our best interest at this
> time.
>
>
> Jeff
>
> http://jeffsayre.com/
>
>
>





 		 	   		  
Received on Friday, 11 February 2011 16:12:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:06:22 UTC