- From: Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2016 11:34:40 +0000
- To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, W3C Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org>, Web Payments CG <public-webpayments@w3.org>, public-rww <public-rww@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAM1Sok2GRd25i6zXPQv73b4pgDyvQwMFsA0-FPpbbWi+Hg0GOw@mail.gmail.com>
oh; was reminded of https://www.w3.org/2004/Talks/w3c10-HowItAllStarted/ May help put some of the concepts described and/or referred to below in better context... The concept of 'incubation' and/or the innovation curve - is particularly used, in perhaps a less than fortunate manner depending on what people are attempting to achieve. Tim.H. On Sat, 23 Jul 2016 at 23:27 Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com> wrote: > NOTES ON MINUTES > https://www.w3.org/2016/07/01-wpay-minutes.html#item04 > > - The dissenting opinions came from Google (Chris Wilson), Microsoft (Mike Champion), > and the W3C Technology and Society Domain leader (Wendy Seltzer). > > - In general (and I hope to get more complete statements from each organisation > in the next month or so): > > NOTES ON SLIDES[1] > Slide 5 (the pie-graph) is a good representation, yet still debatable due > to the sample methodology, IMHO. > Slide 6 relates to the politics of the process. Therein perhaps opening-up > the process to unnecessary conflict due to issues outside of scope (as > noted in the simplistic form - “not in scope”) > Slide 7; same issue as slide 5 > Slide 8: hasn’t this been updated since? The diagram is correct on most > levels, yet, may unnecessarily over-simply > Slide 9: denotes WIP (work in process) nature of the works. I think > underestimating the scope of work is unreasonable as would be > underestimating the importance of the work and the under-resourced nature > the work is currently inhibited by on a pragmatic developmental level; > therein, means to attain capability and acceptance through available > means. This in-turn should not (IMHO) negate the importance of the work. > Slide 10: seems important particularly when reviewing the timeline of > alternative solutions (ie: precedent materials, strategy employed by > entities/agents, et.al). > > I note; i was engaged by the then Web Payments works sometime ago[2] > having been introduced to the work through other efforts first noted in W3C > Lists in separate areas[3], however a lot of time has passed and should it > become necessary for me to notate the variance and development since then; > i’m happy to do so. > > Newer W3C related works form alternatives that modify the paradigms beyond > something that the W3C was established to consider[4] and the notion of > ‘conflict of interest’ becomes quite complex when considering the > methodology of appropriate response. I ponder whether architectural works > need to be considered at executive level of the W3C in consideration of the > change in challenges between the web as it was when W3C was formed; to that > of it’s appropriation today, upon what has considered to relate to Human > Rights[5]. Herein also, is the importance of the IPR strategy made > available by W3C, where related considerations have been made by TimBL[6] > whilst being put to Jeff[7][8] some time ago. Since then of course, > MIT/TimBL/RWW/Sandro/Andrei/Henry/Melvin/Kingsley/(etc) work has been > considered meritorious[9] by others, in which the concern becomes how these > dynamics may be best supported by W3C and indeed; the methodology employed > in furthering works as a neutral, global standards body. > > SLIDE 12: i would argue the lack of budget in-turn results in less than > ideal outcomes. The implications of these works, even simply from an > Australian Petition Heritage point of view[10] (forward looking) may change > the nature of our capacities as humans whom cooperate and collaborate upon > this new communications medium, WWW. I do not see a strict binding to such > underlying protocols, yet much like the disruption that has happened > throughout the economic world; the management of these works seems, IMHO, > to be imperative, in the interests of much broader things than simply the > laws relating to the acts of an agent for a corporation governed by a > particular jurisdiction, as is further contemplated by international > contract law and related instruments. Herein; i question the underlying > issues pertaining to the relatively low involvement numbers and therein; > scalability of involvement and related factors that may unintentionally or > unfortunately inhibit this, and other related works within the > Linked-Data[11] capable domain. > > NOTES RE: MINUTES[12] > RE: PROPOSAL: I think the proposal is exceptional work given the available > resources. > > I also note; the Dialogue[13] contains no audio-reference but simply the > notation taken and the IRC logs seem unavailable to non-W3C Members > (therein also; i am a community member); this in-turn debilitates my > ability to understand the context or persona related aspects of the events; > which i think is particularly debilitating for the uninitiated, who may > seek to become interested in these works and thereafter seek to undertake > due-diligence surrounding the status and position of various stakeholders. > > With regard to the ‘Charter’ document[14] given the organisational > structure and operational capabilities of W3C it may be better to state i > the problem statement, rather than ‘I am a citizen of the USA’; that, ‘i am > a citizen of Australia’ or ‘i am a refugee from Saudi Arabia or Iran’, or a > sex-worker in a foreign country originally from Ukraine, et.al. Whilst > this distinction is semantic in nature; it is probably helpful for the > uninitiated… > > Whilst an array of international diplomacy exists, this dynamics of this > should, IMHO, be out-of-scope. We are trying to support WWW for Humans[15] > and as defined[16][17], IMHO, and perhaps the most universal document > defining this concepts has been defined by the UN[18], as so beautifully > produced in a variety of localised media products such as those from the > US[19] and UK[20]. I am yet to understand how the dissenting organisations > have made best-efforts to consider the merits of the proposal and its > underlying considerations more holistically, yet given the recent events > with regard to the progress of the Web-Payments works[21] consider the > issue to also be outside of scope for the contributors of the Credentials > Spec; who in-turn depend upon others to nurture the grounds on which we > make footprints (in the presence of god, imho, without being distinct about > the book or specified language therein). > > With regard to encryption methodologies, my understanding is that the > design principles provide flexibility pending participation of dependencies > (ie: product vendors) to support these forms of end-to-end capabilities, > within context of particular requirements (ie: KYC/AML, Magna Carta or > constitution related sovereignty implications, Et.al.) > > RE: XML, JSON, etc. This appears to be specified push-back upon the > concept of decentralised capabilities / linked-data. This should be > considered by the relevant groups (ie: other linked-data groups who are > capable of providing assistance in defining the differentiators between > xml, json (et.al) vs. linked-data related syntax / serialisation > methodologies). Whether the specification is defined to be EXCLUSIVELY > json-ld is a separate issue again; and something that may be handled by > vendors who create web-services built into web-services, ie: Any23[22]. > > Re: implementations without HTTP-SIGNATURES - seems kinda pointless. It’s > like taking the teeth out of the capability... > > Re: > <Padler_> Chris A: This is not a protocol, or a cryptographic format, or > an identity... > <Magda> +1 to Chris comments on security/privacy > <Padler_> Chris A: I need this building block to be solid so that I can > build cryptographic signatures and protocols on top of this... > <Padler_> Chris A: This is a fundamental model for other work to > progress... > > I find these comments really interesting. The Concept of ‘Human Identity’ > is really very complex, but certainly involves ‘verifiable claimed’ made by > 3rd parties upon a human entity, who in-turn may be subject to ‘agent’ > concepts in relation to things they create or actors they act for. In-turn > i also believe a SoLiD[23] foundation is in the works, however i think the > use of a specified trademark like term, understanding also other uses of > the term within software development[24], to be unfortunate at best. > > Later comments review JOSE / JWT which i do not believe relates well to > Linked-Data? Considerations may be made thereafter, pending analysis of > the concepts embodied within these technological differentiations… > > With regard to Use-Cases, which have been praised, i ponder the > alternative technological methods for the delivery of the same use-cases > using the alternatively preferred methods (ie; JOSE/JWT) and the > delineation of interest-areas held within these concepts, as may be > considered by the broader community. > > With regard to the concept that is noted continuously about ‘incubation’ a > number of factors are involved; including but not exclusive to, > > * TimeSpan (ie: concept through to outcomes) > * Resources (eg: capabilities, means, investment, etc.). > > These aspects are quite different in nature and do certainly become > impacted by commercial dynamics that can have quite different influences to > that considered by the merits of disciplines such as Web Science[25]. W3C > in-turn might seemingly have a complicated situation on its hands as it > seeks to separate the prosperous development of W3C / WWW, vs. the > market-force related changes that have occurred since the inception / > initiation of W3C, vs. the challenges of today and how they are forged in a > world where the troubles of the past, are past. We have new problems that > require support in different ways. Given the innovative nature of the > Credentials work (and more broadly, RWW / Linked-Data related works) i > ponder whether it is reasonable for the Credentials Team to undertake this > burden, or whether it is more of a W3C issue that needs to be resolved at > an executive level…? > > Implicitly, other areas surrounding the security methodologies are of > course involved; yet somewhat out of scope for the credentials work, as far > as i’m aware, yet nonetheless - are an important consideration. > > This in-turn appears to be a very difficult and complex matter to be > considered in which guidance is suggested by ‘higher powers’ as to refine > the complex nature of the ‘vote outcome’ and how that applies in relation > to broader policy settings that in-turn may be beyond the scope of W3C > organisationally, yet i’m really not sure how all that kinda stuff works. > I just do my best, with my ‘footsteps’... > MICROSOFT > * Mike (Microsoft) felt that the work was largely duplicative of the > JOSE JWT work and it hasn't been incubated enough. His feedback can > be found here: > > > https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webpayments-comments/2016Mar/0002.html > > I seek clarification surrounding the aspects noted in the minutes and the > concerns raised by “Michael Champion” that “It’s highly unlikely that W3C > will staff the work”. I do not see this being confirmed by W3C as yet, a > modern reference is welcomed… In-turn his concerns are duly noted and > shared. IMHO, W3C should staff the work and self-funding the work is less > than ideal. Yet the circumstances for this position is unclear to me, and > clarity surrounding why these statements have been made and the current > position of W3C is welcomed as to better understand the context of support > from W3C as it stands at the time of receipt of this correspondence. > > With respect the the comment about ‘real skin in the game’ i think that > needs to be better clarified / defined… > > With respect to the second point made by denoting a ‘-’, it must be noted > that the WWW as it is today (often referred to as Web 2.0) is an evolution > of prior works, that at the time of inception - also did not have > investment. It is important to note the distinction between those who have > undertaken innovative works at a time where no-investment (or relatively > minor means to put food on the table) existed for something ‘new’ vs. other > works far further down the track of the innovation curve[26] and the role > in which various humans play, in various tasks in various frameworks. It > is exactly these forms of considerations that the Verifiable Claims works > (and more broadly W3 Credentials CG team) have been making great efforts > over an extended, and interactive timespan to respond to what are > reasonable considerations. Yet also, these considerations have less than > ideal levels of funding which in-turn relates to the former consideration > of the nature of the innovation-curve and how actors play various roles. > > With regard to the third point raised; i question what representations > have been made by MS with regard to the future potential of these works for > various government projects and whether they’d be interested in being > supplied services relating to the utility of these future standards (and > current works) should they become better incubated / supported by parties > such as MS. The term ‘credential’ also appears to over-simplify the > technology capabilities offerings via various services. Perhaps this can > be better explained as to avoid confusion between one technology / science > offering and others, et.al. > > Re: bottom line - i think the statements are overly combative. If they > believe alterations should be made, then suggestions, i assume, are > welcomed. Ideally this occurs within the CG environment given the > stakeholders and the current means in which accessibility to participation > in the development of these forms of very important works is made available > to humans, regardless of their role, representation or contractual > responsibilities at the time of authorship of any correspondence relating > to the development of these very important works. > > GOOGLE > "Chris (Google) agreed with Mike's position and felt that the work needed > to be incubated more. He also felt that the work should be constrained to > Education. His feedback can be found here: > > https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webpayments-comments/2016Mar/0003.html > " > > Comments made by Chris Wilson suggest simply incubation (the desire to see > additional resources applied to the works?). Perhaps some form of support > can be provided as to provide a compromise between the various groups. I > understand an MIT team is currently undertaking related work[27] who whilst > having been furnished some support[28] may well serve as a curator of > decentralised incubation support for these works more broadly and in-turn > support the comments made by Chris, whilst enabling the work to progress > with a broader basis of support, development and capability. > > With respect to Wendy’s Comments; i refer to the above considerations, and > wish decision makers my best wishes with figuring out the next steps in > developing these works for the betterment of humanity. > > Kind Regards, > > Timothy Holborn. > > > ________________ > [1] > https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1mL0MsPpdxdKiYFWVIyGVOFzypBsjylxepACN2MYw-yg/edit#slide=id.p > [2] > https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webpayments/2014Mar/0070.html > [3] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webid/2013Nov/0000.html > [4] https://twitter.com/WebCivics/status/492707794760392704 > [5] > http://webfoundation.org/2014/12/recognise-the-internet-as-a-human-right-says-sir-tim-berners-lee-as-he-launches-annual-web-index/ > [6] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rww/2014Jul/0040.html > [7] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rww/2015Aug/0019.html > [8] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rww/2015Aug/0020.html > [9] http://www.csail.mit.edu/solid_mastercard_gift > [10] > http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/House_of_Representatives/Powers_practice_and_procedure/00_-_Infosheets/Infosheet_11_-_Petitions > [11] https://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData.html > [12] https://www.w3.org/2016/07/01-wpay-minutes.html#item04 > [13] https://www.w3.org/2016/07/01-wpay-minutes.html#item04 > [14] https://w3c.github.io/webpayments-ig/VCTF/charter/ > [15] > http://webtv.un.org/watch/tim-berners-lee-human-rights-day-2013-20-years-working-for-your-rights/2895794933001/ > [16] http://whois.domaintools.com/w3.org > [17] http://whois.domaintools.com/w3c.org > [18] http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/ > [19] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aiFIu_z4dM8 > [20] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRGhrYmUjU4 > [21] http://manu.sporny.org/2016/browser-api-incubation-antipattern/ > [22] https://any23.apache.org/ > [23] https://github.com/solid/ > [24] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SOLID_(object-oriented_design) > [25] http://www.webscience.org/ > [26] > http://www.valuebasedmanagement.net/methods_rogers_innovation_adoption_curve.html > [27] https://github.com/solid/ > [28] http://www.csail.mit.edu/solid_mastercard_gift > > On Tue, 19 Jul 2016 at 15:46 Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Cheers. Will follow-up once I've had time to review. >> >> On Tue, 19 Jul 2016, 4:25 AM Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> >> wrote: >> >>> On 07/16/2016 05:43 AM, Timothy Holborn wrote: >>> > I'm still waiting to hear back about that 1 - 2 pager that helps us >>> > understand their considerations better.. >>> > >>> > Unless there is a link I've missed? >>> >>> The Web Payments Interest Group face-to-face meeting minutes went public >>> earlier today, you can try to glean as much as you can from the minutes >>> here: >>> >>> https://www.w3.org/2016/07/01-wpay-minutes.html#item04 >>> >>> The dissenting opinions came from Google (Chris Wilson), Microsoft (Mike >>> Champion), and the W3C Technology and Society Domain leader (Wendy >>> Seltzer). >>> >>> In general (and I hope to get more complete statements from each >>> organization in the next month or so): >>> >>> * Mike (Microsoft) felt that the work was largely duplicative of the >>> JOSE JWT work and it hasn't been incubated enough. His feedback can >>> be found here: >>> >>> >>> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webpayments-comments/2016Mar/0002.html >>> >>> * Chris (Google) agreed with Mike's position and felt that the work >>> needed to be incubated more. He also felt that the work should be >>> constrained to Education. His feedback can be found here: >>> >>> >>> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webpayments-comments/2016Mar/0003.html >>> >>> * Wendy (W3C) felt that the work was duplicative of JOSE/JWT and >>> felt that we only had enough members to make an attempt at >>> standardization wrt. the Education vertical. Her feedback is at the >>> end here: >>> >>> https://www.w3.org/2016/07/01-wpay-minutes.html#item04 >>> >>> > I don't know how we can make good decisions without understanding the >>> > circumstances and underlying considerations made by key stakeholders >>> > who in-turn, yield such important decision making influenced. I note >>> > also, I'm still not sure if these parties are active contributors or >>> > whether they get involved on a more ad-hoc basis? >>> >>> These parties have not been deeply involved in the Verifiable Claims >>> effort to date but have responded when asked for feedback on the >>> charter. Both Wendy and Microsoft have been active with the JOSE/JWT >>> work and Authentication / Security on the Web platform in general. >>> >>> -- manu >>> >>> -- >>> Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny, G+: +Manu Sporny) >>> Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc. >>> blog: The Web Browser API Incubation Anti-Pattern >>> http://manu.sporny.org/2016/browser-api-incubation-antipattern/ >>> >>>
Received on Thursday, 28 July 2016 11:35:25 UTC