Re: Why has CredWeb been silent when it is now needed more than ever?

On 1/21/21 8:53 PM, Bob Wyman wrote:
>
> I could go on at length, but first I'd like to ask if you think that 
> this kind of protocol-based solution, as an alternative and complement 
> to platform-based systems or standards, is something that could or 
> should be explored in this group. Is this the right context in which 
> to explore and develop such protocol-based approaches?
>

I think that's more or less the group's mission.

The problem is, we don't have people participating in the group who are 
building such systems. It's generally a mistake to try to create a 
standard without participation from people developing viable products 
which will use the standard. I've helped people make that mistake 
several times in the past and it's not good.  It's somewhat related to 
the architecture astronaut problem. 
<https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2001/04/21/dont-let-architecture-astronauts-scare-you/>

I am, myself, building such a system. Unfortunately, I don't currently 
know anyone else who is. I also don't know if it can become a viable 
product.  Until there are several other people who are independently 
building this stuff, I don't see a way for standards-type work to proceed.

The CG has at times been an interesting forum for discussion, though, 
and some good has come out of that. Maybe there's value to re-starting 
meetings like that.

Most recently, I was imagining us having presentations by folks 
developing credibility products, and maybe coming up with a review 
process. In particular, I was thinking about how we could push every 
project on the "why should people trust you?" question.  A proper 
architecture (like CAI) can answer this question in a way that closed 
apps can't. Crunchbase has 500+ companies with the keyword 
"credibility", 9000+ with the keyword "trust", and 59 with the keyword 
"misinformation". [I haven't gone through the 59. Clearly some like 
snopes and blackbird are about combating misinfo; others, like Natalist, 
are just making reference to how there is misinformation in their target 
market.]

Is there a story that would get, say, 20 of those 59 to be interested in 
interoperating? I've only talked to a few of them, and I wasn't able to 
think of a serious argument for how their business would benefit from 
going open-data. It might be worth trying some more.

         -- Sandro