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

Solid isn't finished yet.

On Mon, 15 Aug 2016, 10:07 PM Melvin Carvalho <>

> On 15 August 2016 at 11:50, Adrian Hope-Bailie <>
> wrote:
>> From the article: "The question is whether architecture will be enough."
>> The answer is no.
>> We live in world where few ideas succeed without a strong business case.
>> The architecture is the easy part.
> Architecture is deceptively difficult to get right.  The vast majority if
> systems start to fall over as they scale.  The web and REST are two
> architectures that buck that trend and just get stronger as they scale.
> Solid is the next evolution in that architectural trend, imho, because it
> simply embraces the points that made the web great, and extends it a little
> bit, while being 100% backwards compatible.  Right now, it's the only
> system that I know of, with this property, in fact, nothing else is close.
> So this in itself, the ability to scale to billions of users, is a business
> case.  Quietly facebook adopted the social graph approach to the web, and
> web architectural principles with their graph protocol, and also an
> implementation of WebID.
> I think what's true is that few ideas succeed, because simply, we have a
> lot of ideas and a lot of competition.  Having a business can help, but the
> right architecture is the magic sauce to get through those scalability
> barriers.
> I personally think Solid is the business opportunity of a lifetime,
> perhaps even bigger than the first web.  Im certainly investing on that
> basis.
>> On 14 August 2016 at 10:49, Timothy Holborn <>
>> wrote:
>>> 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...)
>>> Tim.H.
>>> [1]
>>> [2]
>>> [3]
>>> [4]
>>> [5]
>>> [6]
>>> [7]
>>> [8] (perhaps not the best reference, but has a bunch of ideas in it:
>>> [9]
>>> [10]
>>> [11]
>>> [12]
>>> [13]
>>> [14]
>>> On Fri, 12 Aug 2016 at 14:47 Anders Rundgren <
>>>> wrote:
>>>> 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 Monday, 15 August 2016 12:08:59 UTC