Re: How the father of the World Wide Web plans to reclaim it from Facebook and Google

Hi Anders,

I'm using this email to respond to both [1] in creds; in addition to the
below, with some lateral considerations.

See this video where Mr Gates and Mr Musk are discussing in China AI [2].

I haven't fully considered the implications, whilst i've certainly been
considering the issue; i have not fully considered it, and as modern
systems become subject to government contracts as may be the case with
enterprise solutions such as those vended by IBM [3], may significantly
lower the cost for government / enterprise, in seeking to achieve very
advanced outcomes - yet i'm unsure the full awareness of how these systems
work, what potential exists for unintended outcomes when work by
web-scientists[4][5] becomes repurposed without their explicit and full
consideration of the original designers for any extended use of their
works, what the underlying considerations are by those who are concerned
[6][7] and how these systems may interact with more advanced HID as i've
kinda tried to describe recently to an audience here [8] and has been
further discussed otherwise [9] [10].

I'm a little concerned about the under-resourcing that seems to plague
Manu's / Dave's original vision (that included WebDHT) to the consultative
approach that i believed had alot of merit in how it may interact with the
works of RWW at the time (alongside WebID) which have al progressed, yet,
not seemingly to a solution that i think is 'fit for purpose' in attending
to the issues before us.

I have considered the need for people to own their own biometric
signatures.  I have considered the work by 'mico-project'[11] seems to be a
good supporter of these future works, particularly given the manner in
which these works support LDP and other related technologies...

But the future is still unknown, and what worries me most; is those who
know most about A.I. may not be able to speak about it as a citizen or
stakeholder in the manner defined by way of a magna carta, such as is the
document that hangs on my wall when making such considerations more broadly
in relation to my contributory work/s.

i understand this herein; contains an array of fragments; yet, am trying to
format schema that leads others to the spot in which i'm processing broader
ideas around what, where and how; progress may be accelerated and indeed
adopted by those capable of pushing it forward.

I remember the team (in RWW years) wrote a bunch of
things in GO, which is what the IPFS examples showcase, and without
providing exhaustive links, i know Vint has been working in the field of
inter-planetary systems [13], therein also understanding previous issues
relating to JSON-LD support (as noted in [1] or [14] ), which in-turn may
also relate to other statements made overtime about my view that some of
the works incubated by credentials; but not subject to IG or potential WG
support at present - may be better off being developed within the WebID
community as an additional constituent of work that may work interoperable
with WebID-TLS related systems.

Too many Ideas!!!

(perhaps some have merit...)


[8] (perhaps not the best reference, but has a bunch of ideas in it:


On Fri, 12 Aug 2016 at 14:47 Anders Rundgren <>

> On 2016-08-11 15:16, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
> > Really good article, mentions Solid and other technologies.  WebID is
> mentioned by the author in the comments too ...
> >
> >
> One of the problems with the Web is that there is no easy way letting a
> provider know where you come from (=where your Web resources are).  This is
> one reason why OpenID rather created more centralization.  The same problem
> is in payments where the credit-card number is used to find your bank
> through complex centralized registers.
> Both of these use-cases can be addressed by having URLs + other related
> data such as keys in something like a digital wallet which you carry around.
> There is a snag though: Since each use-case needs special logic, keys,
> attributes etc. it seems hard (probably impossible), coming up with a
> generic Web-browser solution making such schemes rely on extending the
> Web-browser through native-mode platform-specific code.
> Although W3C officials do not even acknowledge the mere existence(!) of
> such work, the progress on native extensions schemes has actually been
> pretty good:
> This is approach to decentralization is BTW not (anymore) a research
> project, it is fully testable in close to production-like settings today:
> The native extensions also support a
> _decentralized_development_model_for_Web_technology_, something which is
> clearly missing in world where a single browser vendor has 80% of the
> mobile browser market!
> Anders

Received on Sunday, 14 August 2016 08:49:48 UTC