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

am still thinking about how to summarise.  one idea is to create a
'webcivics CG' that provide advocacy and supports discovery / advocacy, yet
as noted; still thinking..

On Mon, 22 Aug 2016 at 22:49 Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote:

> On 8/22/16 4:34 AM, Timothy Holborn wrote:
>
> Kingsley,
>
> Most of the interesting open data related platforms plug into Virtuoso.
>
>
> They support open standards. Virtuoso supports open standards.
>
> Yes.  But it is difficult to set-up. I've been spending a bit of time
working on http://opensemanticframework.org/  and slightly less time
looking at http://opendatanode.org/

which in-turn relates to work that started by me looking at how to make
toilets (amenities) accessible
https://github.com/AGLDWG/TR/issues/5
https://github.com/schemaorg/schemaorg/issues/254

but the field of work that does not seem to be easily deployable is
growing.  Today/yesterday, I started looking into building deb packages,
but not enough time spend on that yet.

>
> I think you need to step it up a bit, and am happy to help, but am unsure
> of the best way to go about it.
>
>
> I am totally unsure of what Virtuoso has to add to this matter.
>

Documentation is difficult to navigate IMHO.  versioning seems difficult,
and whilst it's used by various packages, version-control still seems to be
a bit all over the place - requiring time to go through and update scripts.


am working through some ideas about how to simplify and will report back
asap.

>
>
> If SoLiD is Virtuoso compatible, I think the answer is bit of a
> no-brainer.  Question remains one of business systems, rather than
> exclusively Tech.
>
>
> Virtuoso supports all the open standards covered by SoLiD, and some (e.g.,
> WebID+TLS+Delegation).
>
> We need to speak clearly about these issues otherwise we have nothing but
> confusion.
>
> Due to the use of virtuoso for many of the open-data sparql interfaces; it
seems that this infrastructure (and the growth of it) seems like the best
place to start with building / enabling a deployment base of places people
can store their data.

Some implementations appear to interface with drupal; which has an array of
attractive considerations;

ie:
- https://agov.com.au
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6NUFxWVEOw

yet it's much easier to install apache2 or cpanel than it is to figure out
virtuoso atm.

Kingsley
>
>
> I would encourage the development of a forum to aid with the development
> of installable solutions that have a "human rights" styled licensed, which
> in-turn is something that has been discussed in various forms, but as yet
> does not exist.
>
> Creative commons is a great precedent, but isn't fit for purpose.
>
> i still view the above to be an important element of the overarching
solution; unless someone can tell me of a licensing mechanism, that might
be easily denoted by a 'badge' or well-known branding; that says - this
service provider is a guardian or trustee service for your data and the use
of it with semantic inferencing systems. (which is another layer again).

http://www.mico-project.eu/technology/  seems really interesting IMHO; and
given it's using linked media fragments and LDP, i see how interoperability
may be facilitated;  yet,

At the moment even most 'open-data' stakeholders have a poor understanding
of linked-data which is a more complex issue than simply suggesting they
produce an ontology.  Therein also is the issue of 'budgets'.

If i speak with a large organisation about using linked-data, about what it
can do - they love it - right up to the point where i tell them i need them
to respect that people need to own their own data.  It is important for the
company to own it's data, but if the system seeks to assist humans in
owning their data - well...  they're not so interested in that idea...

I do not know how to solve this very significant barrier easily.  I do not
believe it is a technology problem. I think it is a very deep-seeded
problem that extends throughout the means in how contracts and business
systems were formed around the utility of a RDBMS enabled enterprise; and,
shifting from that - is impossible to do on a basis of simply seeking the
'cheapest' solution up-front.

we cannot solve this problem with a few hundred people, it will take at
least a few hundred thousand people, and whilst i can see business models
that can be proven; getting the cash into the system to start something
that will not end-up being a 'honey pot' is difficult.

I really like the 'aiding vulnerable people' paradigm; where people may be
able to donate babyFormula to a mother in need. or other related
market-mechanisms.  I think most cities spend tens of millions on aiding
homeless / vulnerable people; and the systemic nature of issues exhibited
by organisations operated by the rules embedded within RDBMS solutions; are
increasingly failing to provide an inclusive means in which citizens may
contribute to the wellbeing of their environment, and the people in it.

But that's not a standards based piece of work; that's an implementation
strategy that i think, could be done in a decentralised way so that the
business systems being developed reflect the technical qualities of GRAPH /
linked-data capabilities; which in-turn leads me to consider that perhaps
establishing a 'community group' or 'business group' (cg) may be the best
way to go about getting implementations happening.

another big issue to me is the 'choice of law' issue.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1bHmB8_f7ASRHm97TwhZmmEQnTKU&usp=sharing

It seems important to me; that we find providers willing to provide
services within the legal zoning of the citizens participating.  whilst
this may not be mandatory upon the human - I think it's an important choice
to make available.

lastly; a mobile app seems to be the most targeted way of using RWW related
methodologies.

http://aksw.org/Projects/MobileSocialSemanticWeb.html  seems a bit old
now.  I've been looking for developers (and a means to fund them) with
OpenCV experience - considering that AR is a very significant new landscape
that seems like a more innovative technology segment to meddle in; given
the evolved nature of existing web 2.0 sites and services.  but again; the
ui is somewhat incidental.   It's more about thinking about a 'killer
app'....

imho; owning your own biometric signatures, so when people point
cameras/phones at you; you can assert privacy controls - seems like a good
baseline application of our works...

in the interests of keeping this short; i'll leave this for now and get
back to you when i've summarised my theorem.

Tim.H.

> Timh.
>
> On Sun, 21 Aug 2016, 1:23 AM Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 8/20/16 12:39 AM, Timothy Holborn wrote:
>>
>>
>>> In this example, multiple occupants are the point. A car has a single
>>> driver. Of course, it may have many passengers where each person has their
>>> own identity card (license, passport, or something else).
>>>
>>> My simple example:
>>>
>>> A Car is like your Browser (a Software Agent). It has a registration
>>> number.
>>>
>>> You are identified by your Driver's License.
>>>
>>> I've you skip toll payment, authorities triangulate back to you via your
>>> car registration. Even if they have a photo of you, the toll matter boils
>>> down to triangulation from the vehicle to its driver.
>>>
>>> When you reach you destination, other forms of identity become relevant
>>> e.g., use of your Driver's License as proof of age in a pub. Basically, the
>>> critical credential in this context.
>>>
>>
>> Another use-case that may provide additional 'human centric' support via
>> inferencing; might be along the lines of,
>>
>> - A Friend / Family Member / Employee has use of your vehicle at some
>> dateTime.
>> - The Vehicle is caught speeding.
>> - A lawEnforcementFine is issued that may incur driversLicenseDemitPoints
>> which in-turn may lead to lossOfLicense
>> - Your mobilePhone has GPS records + calendar information (et.al) shows
>> that you were elsewhere at the time.
>>
>> resulting in the ability to produce something like:
>>
>> https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/aug/11/chatbot-lawyer-beat-parking-fines-helping-homeless-do-not-pay
>>
>>
>> Reasoning and Inference introduce more functionality with our own
>> imaginations as the only limiting factor :)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> ie: if the owner of the vehicle is intoxicated; then another person may
>>> be able to drive the vehicle on their behalf, whether or not they've
>>> previously been authorised to drive the vehicle - so long as the owner is
>>> in the car (and not in the boot) for instance...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Example:
>>>> I want to transport some goods from Boston to New York.
>>>> The scenario above includes toll booths and a final destination.
>>>>
>>>> On the highway, my car registration is the identity focal point, with
>>>> regards to toll payments. When I reach my destination, my personal identity
>>>> card (license or something else) is how I prove I am the delivery person
>>>> expected at the final destination.
>>>>
>>>
>>> isn't it simply your face? some sensor identifies something about you,
>>> and it's all very low-friction.  Question is - where do you store your
>>> permissions for how those systems work - or are they your permissions?  or
>>> something else's permissions about you?
>>>
>>>
>>> In my example I trying to illustrate how a simple highway toll booth
>>> system works. One that's oriented towards vehicles driven (or controlled
>>> by) a driver .
>>>
>>> In my example, Car registration is the credential of relevance i.e.,
>>> what the system is built around.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Another example: I drive my car to a pub. At the pub my personal ID is
>>>> what's important. En route to the pub, my Car registration is what's
>>>> important. There are two distinct scenarios requiring different kinds of
>>>> identity.
>>>>
>>>> WebID+TLS doesn't have the fidelity required for traversing the
>>>> existing highway without asking its current maintainers (Certificate
>>>> Authorities and Browser Vendors) to change infrastructure and practices.
>>>>
>>>> WebID+TLS+Delegation simply adds the "On-Behalf-Of" relationship type
>>>> to the mix (i.e., in the data) which distinguishes the user from the
>>>> software they use (drive) thereby enabling one toggle WebIDs without
>>>> browser restarts (due to TLS requirements) [1].
>>>>
>>>
>>> IMHO: Credentials add's via HTTP Signed documents containing RDF; the
>>> ability to produce another important counterpart to the identity lifecycle
>>> mix, but only if humans are active actors in the creation and management
>>> process of credentials use.
>>>
>>>
>>> You are an active participant in the creation of your Driver's License
>>> :)
>>>
>>
>> Yes. However many RDBMS systems are developed in a manner that can have
>> unintended consequences; and more-often than not, it is the vulnerable who
>> are most impacted by what is often knownIssues, considered to have
>> lowerPriority mostOften dueTo a lackOfStructuredData
>>
>> :)
>>
>> Tim.H.
>>
>>
>> SQL RDBMS engines, in basic form, are ill-equipped for this kind of task.
>> They lack the semantic fidelity for this situation.
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>>
>> Kingsley Idehen 
>> Founder & CEO
>> OpenLink Software   (Home Page: http://www.openlinksw.com)
>>
>> Medium Blog: https://medium.com/@kidehen
>> Blogspot Blog: http://kidehen.blogspot.com
>> Twitter Profile: https://twitter.com/kidehen
>> Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about
>> LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
>> Personal WebID: http://kingsley.idehen.net/dataspace/person/kidehen#this
>>
>>
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Kingsley Idehen 
> Founder & CEO
> OpenLink Software   (Home Page: http://www.openlinksw.com)
>
> Medium Blog: https://medium.com/@kidehen
> Blogspot Blog: http://kidehen.blogspot.com
> Twitter Profile: https://twitter.com/kidehen
> Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about
> LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
> Personal WebID: http://kingsley.idehen.net/dataspace/person/kidehen#this
>
>