Re: Problem statement

with all due respect;

Who are you without a government issued birth certificate? where can you
travel without a government issued passport?

A nonsense alternative doesn't help provide diversity, particularly where
that may be considered by the uninitiated, a 'Polarized' alternative,
rather than perhaps what may be a diversification of utility approach by
what is created.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRGhrYmUjU4
https://vimeo.com/30416090
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qByftcYTP3E
http://www.ted.com/talks/tim_berners_lee_a_magna_carta_for_the_web

The long-term works of RWW[1], CrossCloud[2] and more recently SoLiD[3] led
off less structured works perhaps best referenced by TimBL's Design Issues
[4] notes, alongside others such as Ted's Xanadu works [5] all highlight
something that is very different to the RDBMS past as is in-part considered
in TimBL's presentation about the evolution of Web Science [6] and
certainly also the evangelism provided by Kingsley as may be discovered in
various notes [7].

The WebID[8] group / concept is something that founded my initiation into
W3C CG Land, and whilst it is my belief that on a scientific level - a TLS
certificate embedded in a machine - denotes the machine, rather than some
other formatted FOAF document; we have not as yet, despite best efforts by
all involved; been able to build a bridge that highlights the opportunity
defined for the most-part by Manu - in the potential use of
HTTP-SIGNATURES[9] and Web-DHT [10] to provide contributory solutions
towards the previously noted / referenced solutions that are emerging as
alternatives to traditional 'web 2.0' architecture, something that has been
well-authored by the likes of Jeff Sayre [11] with modern mindfulness of
both LDP [12] and the works towards LDP Next [13].

IMHO; we're in the engine room...   Lets make sure it works ;)

'walking with footsteps, in the presence of god' - i don't care which book
or means in which that is meaningful to humans...

An alternative to 'agent' is possible IMHO; and i think compatibility with
that potential future, is something that is sought by at least some of the
parties involved.  I think many people are doing their best to contribute
towards something that is bigger than what they're capable of doing without
being inclusive; i'm simply attempting to suggest a better structure around
how a more positive outcome may be achieved.

prior to the evolution, let alone the establishment of the credentials
group - WebID TLS was a very big thing.  Times have changed and we have the
means to adapt and support what we know to be possible...

perhaps as noted previously; a 'call for papers' around seeking from the
organisational / academic world; their definition of 'identity' from a 'web
science' viewpoint, may be really very, very helpful for a multitude of
important stakeholders who are charged with a very difficult task; in
progressing this work for the betterment of humanity.

Tim.H.


[1] https://www.w3.org/community/rww/
[2] http://crosscloud.org/
[3] http://solid.mit.edu/
[4] https://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/
[5] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=En_2T7KH6RA
[6] https://twitter.com/WebCivics/status/492707794760392704
[7] http://www.slideshare.net/kidehen/
[8] https://www.w3.org/wiki/WebID
[9] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-cavage-http-signatures-03
[10] http://opencreds.org/specs/source/webdht/
[11]
http://jeffsayre.com/2010/09/13/web-3-0-powering-startups-to-become-smartups/

[12] https://www.w3.org/TR/ldp/
[13] https://www.w3.org/community/ldpnext/

On Wed, 3 Aug 2016 at 20:00 David Chadwick <d.w.chadwick@kent.ac.uk> wrote:

> 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
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >
>