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: Tue, 16 Aug 2016 15:42:20 +0200
Message-ID: <CAKaEYhK6GJ059ynJvWUma9+gtOPjvPGPSV-hFhWAQ_zF3m3Eew@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 16 August 2016 at 14:51, Adrian Hope-Bailie <adrian@hopebailie.com>
wrote:

> What is the business case for a service provider to adopt Solid?
>

Offering users a superior service as a competitive advantage.  I think this
is more difficult to explain in text, and easier to show via demos, so I've
been quiet lately and working on the 2nd route :)


>
> Why would Google, Facebook or anyone that build's their business on user
> data choose to let users take that away?
>

There's two aspects to Solid.

One is that it allows more user freedom, more app choice, more connectivity
in data, ability to read and write to the web, more freedom to write the
data / documents / media you want, extra privacy, and realtime updates.
Each of these in isolation is a big advance to the web, but in combination
I think they can be disruptive.

There is another aspect of Solid where folks claim that data can be easily
moved.  I am highly sceptical of this claim and my particular stance on
this is that it's too hard a problem.  I think relative links can be easily
moved, private data can relative be easily moved, and certain classes of
non http links can be easily moved.  But public and shared links that gain
inbound reputation over time are going to be a huge challenge to move, and
essentially from looking at other projects a fools errand.  But if people
have time and want to invest it in that feature, that's a good thing,

Im much more interested in the first part, which I see as the logical
conclusion to the WWW project.  The web was always meant to be read and
write, the browser was always meant to be a data browser as well as
document and media browser.  The browser was always meant to be an editor.
It's just taken a long time thought and effort to create the standards,
libraries, and tools to make it useful.  I think we're now at this point
after over a decade of waiting.

FWIW anecdotally corridor conversations with some of the biggest names on
the web, have expressed interest in solid with perhaps a view to adopt it.
I dont find this impossible to imagine, for example, facebook adopted
linked data, turtle and webid, and rolled it out very quickly.  These
standards are not a big implementation burden to a large company if they
see advantages.


>
> Who will offer users a comparable service to these silos that attracts
> them away but adopts Solid and can still make enough money to survive
> competing with the biggest tech companies in the world?
>

I am aiming start an open source effort, hopefully launching in alpha
around october.  By this time I would hope creating a solid provider can be
done with a simple wizard by a non technical person.  In fact node solid
server is almost there and does have such a wizard.  But we will see! :)


>
> The point is not whether or not the architecture is easy the point is
> whether it has the potential to make anybody any money because if it
> doesn't then I think you will have a hard time persuading people to use it,
> no matter how well it scales.
>

You could look at it another way.  As a developer my productivity has more
or less doubled since using Solid technology.  Its a tool I cant live with
out and it affects my income.  So in a sense solid is already making money
for me in terms of extra efficiency.  Its a tool id pay for, maybe one of
the only tools.  So that encourages me to think that it can either make
money as a business, or allow individuals to increase their own incomes
using the open source versions.


>
> On 15 August 2016 at 14:11, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 15 August 2016 at 14:08, Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Solid isn't finished yet.
>>>
>>
>> Solid is at version 0.6 rather than 1.0.
>>
>> But I dont really know what more can be added to it to get it to v1.0.
>> Im using it on a daily basis and it works fine.  Some people are
>> perfectionists I suppose :)
>>
>> In any case its IMHO light years ahead of where the rest of the web is,
>> even if you only take small parts of it and use it.
>>
>> You can also argue that solid will never be finished, in the sense that,
>> the web will never be "finished".
>>
>> Its definitely something that can be used today.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, 15 Aug 2016, 10:07 PM Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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/2016Au
>>>>>>> g/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 Tuesday, 16 August 2016 13:42:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 August 2016 13:42:54 UTC