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: Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2016 13:01:47 +0000
Message-ID: <CAM1Sok1Yu4xAdaUM4yYrZ6m_2CtupYGBq=CYWYiizQ5jFpKjaQ@mail.gmail.com>
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
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 17 August 2016 13:02:36 UTC