W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rww@w3.org > August 2016

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

From: Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2016 09:56:01 +0000
Message-ID: <CAM1Sok3bYDrCFXB6L3xG1n7zp+bhKeVaEUs9AYuwV6d-FL6Stw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Adrian Hope-Bailie <adrian@hopebailie.com>
Cc: Anders Rundgren <anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com>, public-rww <public-rww@w3.org>, public-webid <public-webid@w3.org>, W3C Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org>
nice.  Adrian, lets take that off-line and come-up with a solution, then
report back...

On Mon, 15 Aug 2016 at 19:50 Adrian Hope-Bailie <adrian@hopebailie.com>

> 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.
> On 14 August 2016 at 10:49, Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
> 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 github.com/Linkeddata 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]
>> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-credentials/2016Aug/0045.html
>> [2] https://youtu.be/TRpjhIhpuiU?t=16m26s
>> [3] http://blog.softlayer.com/tag/watson
>> [4] http://webscience.org/
>> [5] https://twitter.com/WebCivics/status/492707794760392704
>> [6] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tV8EOQNYC-8
>> [7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Letter_on_Artificial_Intelligence
>> [8] (perhaps not the best reference, but has a bunch of ideas in it:
>> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1RzczQPfygLuowu-WPvaYyKQB0PsSF2COKldj1mjktTs/edit?usp=sharing
>> [9] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTqF3w2yrZI
>> [10] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_x_VpAjim6g
>> [11] http://www.mico-project.eu/technology/
>> [12] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CMxDNuuAiQ
>> [13] http://www.wired.com/2013/05/vint-cerf-interplanetary-internet/
>> [14] https://github.com/ipfs/ipfs/issues/36
>> On Fri, 12 Aug 2016 at 14:47 Anders Rundgren <
>> anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com> 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 ...
>>> >
>>> > http://www.digitaltrends.com/web/ways-to-decentralize-the-web/
>>> 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:
>>> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webappsec/2016Aug/0005.html
>>> This is approach to decentralization is BTW not (anymore) a research
>>> project, it is fully testable in close to production-like settings today:
>>> https://test.webpki.org/webpay-merchant
>>> 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 09:56:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:10:55 UTC