Re: Problem statement

I'll organise a conference if necessary...  Consider the response an
'expression of interest'...

Web Science:  identity - define it in linked-data terms?

papers welcomed... :)

Tim.H.

On Wed, 3 Aug 2016 at 20:22 Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
wrote:

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