Re: Problem statement

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
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>

Received on Wednesday, 3 August 2016 10:03:42 UTC