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

On Wed, 17 Aug 2016 at 12:24 Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Melvin / Henry (or TimBL)
>

sorry - perhaps overly (and unintentionall) prescriptive (given the
recipient list)...

>
> Can someone ask (or respond) and tell me what the key principles are that
> TimBL wants to achieve in producing SoLiD (like?) alternatives.
>
> What are these key qualities...
>
> I imagine he would / could summarise it in a page or so, as he has done
> with other concepts in the past.
>
> I do not believe he has a rigid view that SoLiD is the only path for the
> web into the future.  A comment i am reminded of, is one of creating pieces
> and not forcing the everything to be used; but hoping counterparts can and
> will be.
>
> I see work that's been done over a VERY long period of time; and i think
> the semantic inferencer that has somehting like HTTP signatures protecting
> algorithms shared using something like linked-media-fragments to services
> were people are storing their private and sensitive media objects that they
> want to be processed by algorithms produced by incredible scientists around
> the world - well, that kinda stuff is amongst the 'to-do' list IMHO.
>
> TimH>
>
> On Wed, 17 Aug 2016 at 09:31 Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 16 August 2016 at 20:23, Kaliya IDwoman <kaliya-id@identitywoman.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 5:51 AM, Adrian Hope-Bailie <
>>> adrian@hopebailie.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> What is the business case for a service provider to adopt Solid?
>>>>
>>>
>>> 1) first off I'm super skeptical of any project that is
>>> university/research based it is notoriously difficult to get those to
>>> escape the lab as it where. Everyone has incentive to "publish" for their
>>> degrees/professorships - zero incentive to make a usable, market
>>> worthy/ready product (I don't just mean in a business way relative to
>>> market but adoptable in the marketplace of tools and software)
>>>
>>> 2) The Personal Data Ecosystem Consortium that I founded in 2010
>>> http://www.pde.cc has a whole range of companies that have been working
>>> on similar technology and ideas for well over 5 years. So it isn't new -
>>> the ideas around personal data stores/banks etc and putting people at the
>>> center of their own data lives go back at least to Johannes'  Ernst work
>>> (See the top of my twitter for a diagram he drew in 2005-6.  And the
>>> Augmented Social Network White Paper which itself and antecedents in other
>>> work. http://asn.planetwork.net
>>>
>>> 3) Please show me what Tim has lead that has gotten to market besides
>>> HTML back in the day?
>>>
>>
>> Skepticism is healthy.  But can sometimes be overdone.
>>
>> Tim didnt just get html to market.  He also created the first browser
>> (editor).  He created HTTP.  He created.  He created the first web server.
>> And after that he created linked data.  And now Solid.  This is all really
>> one project known as the world wide web.
>>
>> Fun fact: when presenting these things to the hypertext conference when
>> it was all working, the paper was rejected from the main conference and
>> only allowed "poster track"
>>
>> See:
>>
>> https://www.w3.org/2004/Talks/w3c10-HowItAllStarted/?n=16
>>
>>
also see: https://twitter.com/WebCivics/status/492707794760392704 for what
i believe is amongst the better presentations that has alot of detail,
others may miss...

The WebScience http://www.webscience.org/ (for example) aspect is very
important, yet not really offered as a course in a great many institutions;
let alone, the debate about how any such curricula could / should be
delivered..



> Simple fact is that Tim thought about the web for 2 decades before
>> releasing it.  Almost no one got it then.  Solid is the conclusion of that
>> work, and almost no one gets it now.  My hope is that people will start to
>> appreciate it when they see it in action! :)
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why would Google, Facebook or anyone that build's their business on
>>>> user data choose to let users take that away?
>>>>
>>>
>>> They don't have a choice because the European regulatory framework the
>>> General Data Protection Regulation that comes into force in 2018 is
>>> mandating it.
>>> You also have a whole group of companies working on building businesses
>>> around this premise and one finally finally got funding -
>>> https://techcrunch.com/2016/06/30/digi-me-bags-6-1m-to-put-users-in-the-driving-seat-for-sharing-personal-data/
>>> Meeco https://meeco.me/ from Australia is doing awesome work (Both
>>> there and in the UK) as is MyDex https://mydex.org/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>
>>> We have to really get into the weeds of figuring how value flows in
>>> these networks to make it work for the parties involved and be sustainable
>>> in the long run.  It will take way more then "architecture".
>>>
>>>
>>> If you all want to dive into some of the nitty gritty I invite you to
>>> the Internet Identity Workshop - http://www.internetidentityworkshop.org
>>>
>>>
>>> :) Kaliya
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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-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
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>