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: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2016 14:07:02 +0200
Message-ID: <CAKaEYhK7Bu5+uUJ2pydqOhiZNdpuapf9HkQ1Xb+-i2-0YzXeYg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Adrian Hope-Bailie <adrian@hopebailie.com>
Cc: Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>, 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>
On 15 August 2016 at 11:50, Adrian Hope-Bailie <adrian@hopebailie.com>
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 <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-W
>> PvaYyKQB0PsSF2COKldj1mjktTs/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 12:07:36 UTC

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