- From: Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2016 13:01:47 +0000
- To: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>, Martynas Jusevičius <martynas@graphity.org>
- Cc: Kaliya IDwoman <kaliya-id@identitywoman.net>, Adrian Hope-Bailie <adrian@hopebailie.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>, public-declarative-apps@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CAM1Sok1Yu4xAdaUM4yYrZ6m_2CtupYGBq=CYWYiizQ5jFpKjaQ@mail.gmail.com>
Dbpedia Is a rather good app. Openlink Virtuoso a very mature platform, with an array of access methods built-in. Do RWW apps still work with Openlink? Or how about the oidc branch related works? Did we get anywhere with http-signatures? Timh. On Wed, 17 Aug 2016, 10:54 PM Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com> wrote: > On 17 August 2016 at 10:40, Martynas Jusevičius <martynas@graphity.org> > wrote: > >> My 2 cents: Linked Data is great, but what it lacks is a theoretical >> model below it, on which other efforts can build. Of the W3C specs, >> only RDF has semantics, while SPARQL has an algebra. Why not LDP? That >> has produced a myriad of LD stacks with duplicating features and low >> interoperability, both in terms of composition of software libraries >> and run-time LD calls, mostly on the write side. >> >> Someone has said earlier on this list, that (software) engineering is >> not science. Well, maybe we should turn it into science then. And use >> it to produce one generic Web API (read-write Linked Data), instead of >> the "API economy" which we currently have. >> >> Basically, Linked Data should have provable semantics. We think we >> have found a declarative way to do it, which actually brings Linked >> Data closer to the original ontology-driven Semantic Web vision. But >> it involves SPARQL, which many Linked Data people seem to have an >> aversion for (yet many of the same people champion JSON, which is an >> immaterial and orthogonal implementation detail in this big picture). >> >> We call the approach Linked Data Templates, and are currently working >> on its semantics. Please take a look: >> >> https://github.com/AtomGraph/Linked-Data-Templates/blob/master/XML%20London%202016%20paper/Linked%20Data%20Templates.pdf > > > I'm all for the declarative approach! > > I think what some people have alluded to here is that to give technology > the best chance, you have to find a sweet spot. > > It has to be generic enough to solve a large number of use cases and > practical enough to get a developer and user base. It needs a development > team behind it and some specification work / documentation. The main issue > I see is that there are very few resources in this area. One reason it's > taken more than 10 years (or 20?) to get as far as we have. > > Inevitably it's about finding compromises to get to a spec good enough to > solve the important use cases (with large coverage), and with enough mind > share and developer momentum to be worth the time investment. Competing > stacks are something we want to minimize simply because we lack developers > to really make a good go of each. > > LDP I think was good in that we needed to webize the file system, and it > was a pretty good attempt at that. Of course, many people will have > differing views on what LDP is for. This is really useful and Solid simply > adds access control to that, because a file system without permissions is > less useful. > > But what we have in linked data now is just about a stack capable of a > whole new generation of apps. Yes we are held back by legacy technology > which means developers have to work that much harder to make the case. But > as soon as people start to see things working, and what can be done, it is > possible to solve our one major problem which is lack of developers. Id > encourage those interested in LD to try and collaborate more and work on > interop. Of course this is really really hard, because in a distributed > environment there are more moving parts, and this increases the testing > complexity not double but an order of magnitude. And pretty much no one > has time to do that kind of testing -- we need a solution here -- and for > years I've not been able to think of any, other than to suggest having a > 'head of integration' in teams. > > Until then I think we really need to try and get at least one project to > the degree of maturity where it can challenge and overtake the best we've > seen on web 1.0 + 2.0 and bring it to a next generation distributed > paradigm. RDF is great. Linked Data is great. SPARQL is a great query > language. LDP is a great tool to work with file systems, of file system > like things. Solid is a great tool to add identity and permissions, and > realtime (which sadly isnt working on android right now). We dont really > need much more than this, just encourage people to build apps! > > >> >> >> Best, >> >> >> Martynas >> atomgraph.com >> >> >> On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 4:24 AM, Timothy Holborn >> <timothy.holborn@gmail.com> wrote: >> > Melvin / Henry (or TimBL) >> > >> > 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 >> >> >> >> 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 >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>> >> >>> >> > >> >
Received on Wednesday, 17 August 2016 13:02:36 UTC