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: Sebastian Samaruga <ssamarug@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2016 10:14:38 -0300
Message-ID: <CAOLUXBvM4ohXTaTqog34+mpzvSG4tqaknjFSj_iQ2uOvWO_1pw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martynas Jusevičius <martynas@graphity.org>
Cc: W3C Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org>, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>, Anders Rundgren <anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com>, Adrian Hope-Bailie <adrian@hopebailie.com>, Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>, public-rww <public-rww@w3.org>, Kaliya IDwoman <kaliya-id@identitywoman.net>, public-declarative-apps@w3.org, public-webid <public-webid@w3.org>
Maybe this could apply as a poor model theoretical foundation (see
attachment). It's a very early inception draft of a functional API for a
sets oriented implementation of triples/resources arrangement in a models
of models approach.

For example: Facts, data (triples SPOs) is the model of Semantics,
information which in turn is the model for Behavior or knowledge.

A potential deployment architecture with P2P semantics could use network
infrastructure for addressing and resolution.

The client sides of such a peer's application would use a JQuery like API
to interact with models.

A functional interpreter could use models & metadata as declarative means
of rendering services in which to build upon applications or other services..

Regards,
Sebastián.
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

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 Thursday, 18 August 2016 13:17:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 18 August 2016 13:17:20 UTC