- From: Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2016 13:49:00 +0000
- To: Anders Rundgren <anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com>, Adrian Hope-Bailie <adrian@hopebailie.com>, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
- Cc: public-rww <public-rww@w3.org>, public-webid <public-webid@w3.org>, W3C Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAM1Sok3Ofnoxi21VazLfniFyWdvK-9pHwrKFni5LVzGy3q3Sgg@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, 16 Aug 2016 at 23:30 Anders Rundgren <anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com> wrote: > Business models and architectures certainly are hurdles but the (IMO) #1 > reason > to why centralized services succeed and decentralized (usually) do not is > that the > latter require agreements by gazillions of partners with different agendas > which as shown by for example the middle-east conflict simply doesn't work. > IMHO: creative commons is a great example of how, as you refer to it, a 'gazillions of partners' can be coordinated. similarly; yet different, is github, or indeed also - W3C... IMHO we need a new type of license agreement that enables service-providers whilst offering a 'human rights' considerate - licensing alternative. the data stored on these underlying storage-services is not owned by the service-provider, but rather, the human who holds the account or humans who maintain an account via a trust-mechanism (ie: groups) which in-turn can be described in RDF. another problem therein becomes enforcement; yet, we have been taught by governments how to do this. The TransPacific Partnership agreements, as an example, illustrate the power of international contract law - and lets face it, if a legal firm believes money is available for successfully winning a case - they'll often fund the case to get a bigger slice of that settlement... so, amongst the issues that exist IMHO; is one of how licensing / contract law, may be applied to achieve a 'human rights' compliant design outcome. of course; this is not the only type of licensing arrangement i envisage may apply to these future services; but i would consider alternatives less 'human centric'... > Even for partners with "similar" agendas like banks, the idea of creating > a bank-to-bank payment protocol is probably never going to happen. Well, > there are som enthusiasts who believe in the PSD2 regulation but the forces > behind PSD2 didn't design an API to go with that, so at least seen from my > watchtower their cute but toothless project will be completely overridden > by > Apple, Google, PayPal etc. who all offer a working solution including > security. > > that's more of an argument about various 'institutional web' variants; of which many exist. It's it called more broadly - Web 2.0 >? Tim.H. Anders > > On 2016-08-16 15:10, Timothy Holborn wrote: > > The shift has an array of impacts. One of the simple yet complex > opportunities is for start-ups / app-developers. The remarkable difference > of not hosting user-data both enables highly granular access and utility of > data people would ordinarily not provide, whilst simultaneously lowering > the scaling cost due to the website provider not needing to > store/distribute user-data... > > > > If we need to go through the business models, perhaps a business group > CG could be established to consider the far broader implications beyond > this singular and relatively simple business case example. > > > > What do you think happened to the YouTube founders when they're little > box, perhaps running in their bedroom, suddenly got a million users. > Whilst that may not be the specific example - i've seen others in the > paper... Often they need to find alot of resources, or the site gets > shut-down due to lack of resources. > > > > that's not really pushing humanity forward in a way that supports our > innovators... > > > > the other is of course 'choice of law'. > > > > floppy disks vs. the programs we installed on our pre-pentium systems - > well... > > > > It was kinda clear - people kept the floppy in their pockets, > briefcases, etc. The documents were not locked into the app. > > > > anyhow. i can go on forever. If a perception exists that there is no > economic merit in SoLiD (or LDP related) platform alternatives; then i > think establishing a Business CG[1] is something i'd put alot of time into, > as a means to establish a market-based solution to something that i fear > may become centralised in a manner that we don't like - because we didn't > figure out how to cooperate more effectively towards a better future [2]. > > > > [1] https://www.w3.org/community/about/#bg > > [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tV8EOQNYC-8 > > > > On Tue, 16 Aug 2016 at 22:51 Adrian Hope-Bailie <adrian@hopebailie.com > <mailto:adrian@hopebailie.com>> wrote: > > > > What is the business case for a service provider to adopt Solid? > > > > Why would Google, Facebook or anyone that build's their business on > user data choose to let users take that away? > > > > 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? > > > > 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. > > > > On 15 August 2016 at 14:11, Melvin Carvalho < > melvincarvalho@gmail.com <mailto:melvincarvalho@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > > > > > > On 15 August 2016 at 14:08, Timothy Holborn < > timothy.holborn@gmail.com <mailto: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 <mailto:melvincarvalho@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > > On 15 August 2016 at 11:50, Adrian Hope-Bailie < > adrian@hopebailie.com <mailto: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 <mailto: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 < > http://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 <mailto: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 Tuesday, 16 August 2016 13:49:44 UTC