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

Question - I assumed that this group was responsible for CredMan - is that
correct or does that live somewhere else?

Be the change you want to see in the world ..tom


On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 7:26 AM Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 22 Jan 2021 at 14:54, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>
>
> That sounds about right.
>
> I still believe a big part of the difficulty here is also that online
> credibility is kind of an arms race, so those seeking to be recognized as
> credible will be paying close attention to any putative standard or
> protocol, which makes developing such things collaboratively in an open way
> problematic.
>
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> Even just as a meeting place for folks who want to find like-minded
> collaborators, a community group has value...
>
> All the best,
>
> Dan
>
>
>> 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
>>
>>
>>