Re: A Quick Note on WebID history - Re: All the Agents Challenge (ATAC) at ISWC 2021

On Sat, 24 Jul 2021 at 21:44, Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net> wrote:

> I just thought I’d mention that I thing the history
> of WebID portrayed below is a simplification based on
> projections due to lack of information.
>
> I don’t have time to join the discussions here usually, but let me this
> once.
>
> [image: Someone is *wrong* on the Internet by Randall Munroe at xk… |
> Flickr]
>
>
> WebID ( https://webid.info/spec ) is a simple spec that is at the
> foundation of Solid, which I am working on.
>
> For those who want a big picture view I published a second
> year PhD report that goes into details on the architecture
> from a philosophical and mathematical perspective two years ago .
>
>    https://co-operating.systems/2019/04/01/
>
> I wrote the first blog post on at Sun Microsystems on foaf+ssl around 2008,
> and the first paper I wrote has over 150 citations.
> foaf+ssl was later renamed to  WebID-TLS which is much better.
> TLS  was all that could work at the time with browser tech.
>

Congratulations on the citations.  For the record, it was my idea to split
WebID into an identity spec and an authentication spec (WebID+TLS),
creating a modular system of pluggable identity, for example, WebID-OIDC
etc.


>
> A proof is that it took 10 years to get to the point where credentials
> could replace X509 certificates, and it is actually not quite there yet,
> as we need RDF canonicalization, which will take another 3 years.
>

TLS is not the only auth system that can work in the browser.  It's not
clear that RDF canonicalization will go to a working group, and become a
REC in 3 years, which is what I suspect you want.


>
> I am very much in favor of Manu Sporny’s work, and am intending to use
> it when it is finished. I have been building on Manu’s work on HTTP
> signatures
> here
>
> https://github.com/bblfish/authentication-panel/blob/main/proposals/HttpSignature.md#the-sequence-diagram
>
> I don’t think one needs to adopt the whole project to get somewhere:
> luckily
> as implementing all the 50+ did protocols would be a huge task in itself.
>

When I met with Manu I asked him if his work could be made compatible with
WebID's preferred (and default) serialization, turtle.  His reply was that
it's hard enough getting people to use JSON-LD

I think he's right on that.  One of the biggest things holding webid back
is forcing people to use turtle, and similarly with LDP.  It's too much of
a heavy-lift for the average developer and they'll choose JSON.  The name
RDF is poison to web developers

IMHO we need a JSON based version of WebID, perhaps an extension of
schema.org, as a basis to create a modern read-write web

>
>
> Currently I am writing a Solid web server as part of an EU project which
> has the above mentioned techn built in, and as you can see from the
> description
> credentials are part of the story.
>
>  https://nlnet.nl/project/SolidControl/
>
> Btw. the first web server I wrote was in play on
> https://github.com/read-write-web/rww-play
>
> This is a second version of it. I hope it will be a lot better.
>
> All the best,
>
> Henry Story
>
>
> On 24. Jul 2021, at 15:19, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, 19 Jul 2021 at 23:51, Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 19 Jul 2021 at 18:54, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 16 Jul 2021 at 15:42, Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> Foaf defines the concept of agent
> http://xmlns.com/foaf/spec/#term_Agent
>
> I'm unaware of the schema that defines agency...? Or the implications of
> the agency of things on other agents, etc.
>
> Yes, I think that's the idea, humans, groups, machines all having a
> digital representation, which was the basis of WebID.  I know you struggled
> to get behind that definition, Tim
> certainly did...  Back ~2013/4 there were a few concepts i was struggling
> to form an ecosystem around; but i had a particular sort of usecases in
> mind, that was far less part of broader discussions...
>
> Therein - things have developed - still seems the underlying concerns
> haven't been 'better considered'??  which has something to do with
> symmetry between real-world & legal semantics vs. cyber / online semantics
> (and eventually governance practices)
>
> Therein: Law has a concept of agency
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_agency associated to the concept of
> a legal agent https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/agent
>
> back then the principal concept was to focus on WebID which in-turn also
> had two key elements;  a Web-ID being a HTTP URI associated to an
> RDF document;  the other, being an AUTH method such as WebID-TLS where the
> document is expressly 'baked' into the AUTH Instrument; but
> didn't seemingly support rich enough semantics to support inferencing
> around provenance of authority / causality, which led to disputes about
> 'identity credentials' vs. 'Web-ID' although this history is now difficult
> to inspect; given various advancements from the pre-credentials CG (ie:
> 'identity credentials' incubated in web-payments only) days...
>
> I think the webid and identity credentials started out with the same
> root.  But sometimes people problems get in the way.  The chair of
> the webid group behaved in a passive aggressive way to Manu & co. who at
> the time were putting an enormous amount of energy into WebID.  They were
> made to feel unwelcome and so they went away and created something
> themselves, with great success
>
> I would say that the main practical difference between the two is that
> Manu bet on JSON and the WebID community bet on Turtle.  Turtle was a brave
> bet in 2013 and required convincing the world, or a good chunk of it, to
> use it.  If it was a brave bet in 2013, it's a one in 2021.  JSON is going
> from strength to strength, the tooling is well ahead and accelerating, and
> even in RDF JSON-LD is the de facto deployment via schema.org.  You could
> say that in theory Linked Data is in theory serialization agnostic, but in
> practice it isnt, and defaults matter
>
> There's also a difference between keys vs people and acl vs capabilities.
> That I think could have resolved itself to add both sides, in a more wide
> reaching framework.
>
>
> At the time - certainly, as was the case for me, i wasn't so 'intently'
> focused on the requirements to extensively consider the requirements for an
> AI Agent (on behalf of a person, as a 'digital twin' concept, which has
> only developed as a known term, sometime later on...).
>
>
> Agency isnt a binary thing, it's a spectrum.  Some tools are very much
> under human control.  Some have some agency, like a programmable robot
> vacuum.  And some are completely autonomous e.g. like the bitcoin
> distributed ledger
>
> I still have problems that link to the conceptual frameworks associated to
> the production of information management systems (or moreover knowledge
> management systems, which incorporates a need for richer semantics /
> assertive predicates linked to provonance - not unlike the HTTPA works
> https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/93833 that i found eminently
> inspiring at the time; as to determine 'sense-making' related evaluation
> particularly in circumstances where wrongs have been 'performed' and
> there's a need for our systems of 'rule of law' (ie: courts) to investigate
> the history of a problem, and then furnish a better capacity to evaluate
> related aspects such as malice / malicious actors and those who may have
> acted as to harm a person in some way that may contravene their real-world
> values (but were poorly informed and/or given false / wrongful information
> by another to instigate an attack, etc.) or other aspects relating to torts
> / negligence, etc.
>
> There's now a whole field developing called 'rules as code'
> https://twitter.com/search?q=%23rulesascode - yet the consequences of
> various 'decision making processes' (causality linked realities) still
> kinda means people are assumed to have access to little more than an
> identifier that provides association to institutionally governed systems
> that provide some form of record in relation to lived experiences, etc.
>
> therein - 'human agency' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agency_(philosophy) and
> meeting the needs to support societies where the right to
> self-determination and other historical deliberations associated to works
> such as human rights doctrine, common-law and much more - well - From
> my perspective, whilst the lens of how post-print online information
> systems are made to work in a particular sort of ideological manner
> (globally, in a form of institutional web of kinds) - this still has
> vulnerabilities that lead to harms upon persons, progress, institutions and
> even democracies...
>
> Drew this diagram the other day (per attached); where i sought to commence
> considerations around how a programmatically defined - objective system -
> could define a 'chat bot' like software package, that may do graph
> analysis; then send thousands of 'drones' at each particular actor as
> to undertake 'influence operations' where the objective is to polarise
> 'group thoughtware' between two binary objective positions; for example -
> being part of the herd (compliant / 'switched to guided mode' - like a
> self-driving car) or majorly polarised (ie: able to manipulate environment
> of target in a manner that takes into account 'insights' (personalisation)
> to disrupt and immobilise actor by dissociative behavioural ops related
> outputs).
>
> The example being twitter; where an account isn't necessarily a
> real-person, but may engage in political activities.  So, a sophisticated
> actor (at 'layer 1' of operations) could generate thousands of these things
> that target particular 'concepts' discussed in the public space (regardless
> of whether statements link to real-world STEM or not); then at a secondary
> layer, find polarised extremists and instigate capacity for attacks by them
> - upon the targets (target can mean persons who share some sort of
> 'believe' or engage in some sort of similar field of investigation); and
> all this sort of stuff could be done dynamically, sending harder 'tickets'
> (examples) to human actors to engage with personally as to elevate any such
> targets on some sort of agenda based operation...
>
> Given the structural frameworks in place - these sorts of capabilities are
> very difficult to defend against due to a lack of - what i'd consider to be
> - 'ontological hygiene' (at a minimum.
>
>
> <AiPolitics.png>
>
> interestingly - the older, far less sophisticated 'manipulation' method
> was simply 'buying likes' for a page / profile; indeed, a page i set-up in
> 2013 is seemingly under one of those sorts of attacks, for reasons that
> baffle me as noted
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rww/2021Jul/0002.html - they
> may well be 'real people' (mostly in india) but i don't know why that would
> be the case; or what benefit someone may be seeking by paying for a fairly
> dormant page that's been sitting there, not doing much, for quite some
> time...  although, the damage is far less than the case with respect
> to elections or other major 'social policy' decisions that impact millions
> / billions, etc...  So, for now, its an interesting thing that helps me
> think more about these sorts of underlying 'ontological design' (
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aigR2UU4R20 ) problems.
>
> Twitter are now sponsing an open system called bluesky aimed at
> decentralizing conversations on the web.  One of the inputs to
> the ecosystem review is the work done on Solid, which I guess in part, came
> out of the work done in the RWW CG
>
> I like Solid, but as a power user, I hit some walls.  It was designed to
> work with humans and semantic agents, but those semantic agents were very
> hard to build reliably, in practice.  I dont think anyone really achieved
> that
>
>
>
> I think bitcoin was the first thing (aside from the internet itself) to
> have this completely autonomous property.  And now that we have that, it
> can be used to create other similar systems.  The idea of "rules without
> rulers"
>
> I think i may have had 'too much faith' in the intent of leaders; as such,
> sought to create infrastructure that had more dependencies upon a capacity
> to provide tooling that could better show / support 'good intentions' via a
> fabric of organisations; rather than using computationally based
> infrastructure designs (ie: like bitcoin) upon the ideological position
> that it may be dangerous to society / democracies, to make an assumption
> that systems can be made to be trust-worthy via an assumption of 'good
> faith' in sophisticated actors / human organised infrastructure...
>
> I've started writing about another sort of design built upon DLTs as a
> means to create in-effect, perhaps even - a new internet - depending on
> whether world politics leads to a place where there's demand for such a
> thing, at what level, etc...  But - more about that in a different post
> about the topic and/or some ideas about how something useful might be
> progressed.
>
> Most DLT systems are schemes designed to print money and enrich the
> founders, leading to the famous "rug pull" scheme.  There are some notable
> exceptions, bitcoin being one of them.
>
> DLT as a time stamp server is a valuable innovation tho, provided that
> it's not impaired (e.g. as above).
>
>
> To endth the point about my having had 'troubles' (intellectually)
> figuring out the 'agent' / 'agency' semantics; certainly it could now be
> used with 'credentials' / 'verifiable claims' ('vaccine passports'), etc...
>
> I'm just not sure how that is likely to end-up helping the human 'subject'
> appended, directively, to said instruments.   There was a lot of focus by
> alot of people, what we have today (causality) is a result of how those
> sorts of discussions led to outcomes in relation to those involved in the
> discussions - and in-turn now, what and how things have evolved since, as
> to be now getting rolled out across the planet.
>
> I am still of the view that the 'merit semantics' that link to often
> despised concepts such as 'social credit systems'; about what sorts of
> motivators lead to 'success' (happiness, ability to care for ones own
> children and/or themselves, those around them, etc.) vs. the opposite.  I
> still believe there are major 'semantic' challenges in these areas that
> have enormous implications (ripple effects) across the world.
>
> Its important to note; that when first designed, it was back in ~1998
> onwards - the world (and computing) was very different back then; yet,
>
> IMO - the implications, without review / redesign - whilst they could be
> evaluated, i'm increasingly of the opinion that this is not likely to be
> a voluntary thing invested towards by todays most trusted brands (and their
> underlying investment infrastructure, regulators, etc.).
>
> AFAIK there weren't many people involved in these sorts of 'design
> thinking' processes - although others, are extensively discussed in
> relation to the 'brands' or whatever linked to their tooling, that now
> in-effect 'powers the world' and its decision making capacities via the
> web, in ways that can do stuff like exhaust toilet-paper supplies or get
> 3.5Bn billions people locked-down into home detention of some sort, within
> days; alongside many other implications, that my former concerns about the
> energy (/productivity) costs of 'bitcoin' increasingly seems cheap, like
> others told me was the case back then.
>
> Regarding merit semantics, what's missing from the web is a way to show
> gratitude, rather than thanks.  This cant really be done with existing web
> technologies.  To coin a phrase, 'talk is cheap'.  Or as Marshall McLuhan
> phrased it, "The phrase 'money talks' resonates because money is a
> communications medium".  "Gratitude is the completion of a thanks".  It has
> to have more substance than just a 'like' or a 'retweet', which is where
> the (proof of) work comes in.
>
>
> Hope that helps.
>
> Timothy Holborn.
>
>
>
> On Fri, 16 Jul 2021, 10:08 pm Cristian Vasquez, <cristianvasquez@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> For me, it's not. A browser is a tool to browse, and (today) it lacks
> 'agency.'
>
> Still, I've asked the question 'for you, what is an agent?' to many
> people in the linked data community.
> Many of them think of the browser as 'the agent' of excellence ;)
>
> On Fri, Jul 16, 2021 at 1:33 PM Martynas Jusevičius
> <martynas@atomgraph.com> wrote:
> >
> > Is Linked Data browser an "agent"?
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 9, 2021 at 10:13 PM Andrei Ciortea <andrei.ciortea@unisg.ch>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Cristian,
> > >
> > > Apologies for replying so late — these weeks are just over the top. :-)
> > >
> > > Do you have a link to watch the Web seminar?
> > >
> > >
> > > This was a 5-day seminar, some invited talks and demos were recorded,
> but it’s up to the speakers to publish the recordings — with approval from
> Schloss Dagstuhl and following some special considerations.
> > >
> > > One of the seminar participants was Mike Amundsen and Mike's invited
> talk is available here: https://figshare.com/s/e7b83338b9c08bd1753b
> > >
> > > I am not aware of any other recordings that were made available
> publicly.
> > >
> > > I find the idea of a shared Web-space amazing!
> > > Such a testbed would add some joy to developing and compare different
> > > approaches.
> > >
> > >
> > > That’s great to hear!
> > >
> > > Then I had to ask myself, what is an agent in the context of RWW?
> > > Does the agent need 'agency'? I started to be confused ('agent' is a
> wide term).
> > >
> > > And I've been confused regarding this for a long time!.  Some years
> > > ago, I experimented with a program called 'agent' that used linked
> > > data and N3 rules. The main functionalities were:
> > >
> > > 1. To consume/produce hypermedia
> > > 2. To know how to build internal/external states consisting of
> > > combinations of various Web resources in the Web.
> > >
> > > The program seemed helpful, but does it classify as an agent?
> > >
> > >
> > > Well, "what is an agent” is a question that can easily take a bad
> turn. :-)
> > >
> > > I myself am interested in any type of artificial agent — from reactive
> agents to cognitive agents: different agent architectures come with
> different design choices and properties. Different types of agents can also
> co-exist in one system. One classical textbook on multiagent systems that
> discusses different types of agent architectures is:
> > >
> > > Weiss G, editor. (1999) Multiagent systems: a modern approach to
> distributed artificial intelligence. MIT press (see on Google Scholar).
> > >
> > > Then, because I’m focused on open and dynamic hypermedia environments,
> I am also interested in agents that exhibit some level of autonomy. A
> discussion on autonomy that I find interesting is in:
> > >
> > > Castelfranchi C., Falcone R. (2003) From Automaticity to Autonomy: The
> Frontier of Artificial Agents. In: Hexmoor H., Castelfranchi C., Falcone R.
> (eds) Agent Autonomy. Multiagent Systems, Artificial Societies, and
> Simulated Organizations (International Book Series), vol 7. Springer,
> Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-9198-0_6 (see on Google
> Scholar).
> > >
> > > I want to find people who want to exchange approaches to build agents
> > > that use linked data; it would probably be easier with a forum or
> > > chat; this would make it easier to collaborate in the long-lived., Web
> > > environment. And probably also enable people from outside academia to
> > > jump in.
> > >
> > >
> > > That’s great to hear! It seems a community is slowly forming, but it
> takes time. Meanwhile, we look forward to see you at ATAC 2021 — and you
> can bring your own environment if the ones advertised with the challenge
> don’t fit ;-)
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Andrei
> > >
> > >
> > > On 1 Jun 2021, at 16:24, Cristian Vasquez <cristianvasquez@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 1:38 AM Andrei Ciortea <
> andrei.ciortea@unisg.ch> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi Melvin,
> > >
> > > Great and yes — this is certainly an area being researched. In fact,
> back in February we organized a Dagstuhl Seminar on "Autonomous Agents on
> the Web" and I think your vision is well aligned with several of the
> discussions we had during the seminar: https://www.dagstuhl.de/21072
> > >
> > > In terms of research, I think many of the pieces of the puzzle are
> already there as contributions in different communities (and some piece of
> the puzzle are certainly missing), but what we need is a concerted effort
> of these communities to align and integrate the various research threads —
> and this was the main motivation for organizing this seminar. We've just
> submitted the seminar report to Schloss Dagstuhl a couple of weeks back, it
> should be published soon.
> > >
> > > In terms of available technologies, I think we still have some way to
> go to get to the vision you are describing — multi-agent systems that are
> Web-scale, open, and long-lived. I think we’ll get there, but of course we
> first need to start somewhere.
> > >
> > > This is where Tobias’ initiative for the agent challenge comes in, and
> this is also where the 2 robots I’ve shared with you come in: one idea that
> came up during the seminar is to set up a shared "live" demonstrator space
> — a deployed, open, long-lived, and geographically distributed hypermedia
> environment that could provide a testbed for trying out ideas and
> identifying challenges. It’s an ambitious task, but we’ve already started
> to work towards it. :-)
> > >
> > >
> > > Hello Andrei,
> > >
> > > I find the idea of a shared Web-space amazing!
> > > Such a testbed would add some joy to developing and compare different
> > > approaches.
> > >
> > > Regarding the challenge, I first looked into the maze; and I thought
> > > about using an existing solver or reinforcement learning algorithm
> > > 'for mazes.' (a 'gym'). Then the problem perhaps reduces to writing a
> > > script that interprets and follows links; or something like that.
> > >
> > > Then I had to ask myself, what is an agent in the context of RWW?
> > > Does the agent need 'agency'? I started to be confused ('agent' is a
> wide term).
> > >
> > > And I've been confused regarding this for a long time!.  Some years
> > > ago, I experimented with a program called 'agent' that used linked
> > > data and N3 rules. The main functionalities were:
> > >
> > > 1. To consume/produce hypermedia
> > > 2. To know how to build internal/external states consisting of
> > > combinations of various Web resources in the Web.
> > >
> > > The program seemed helpful, but does it classify as an agent?
> > >
> > > I want to find people who want to exchange approaches to build agents
> > > that use linked data; it would probably be easier with a forum or
> > > chat; this would make it easier to collaborate in the long-lived., Web
> > > environment. And probably also enable people from outside academia to
> > > jump in.
> > >
> > > Cristian.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > We intend to organize a follow-up online event in July, I’m happy to
> keep you in the loop if interested. I'll get back to you soon with the
> additional materials and documentation.
> > >
> > > Melvin, thanks for your enthusiasm and we look forward to receive your
> submission for ATAC! :-)
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Andrei
> > >
> > >
> > > On 25 May 2021, at 22:11, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, 25 May 2021 at 18:52, Andrei Ciortea <andrei.ciortea@unisg.ch>
> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi Melvin,
> > >
> > > Thanks for sharing this fascinating topic.  I'm very much interested
> in autonomous agents on the read-write web.  I have built a few of these in
> the past, and they seem to lack teeth.  The phrase "where are all the
> agents" resonates with me, and motivates me to try and look for something
> more robust
> > > Browsing the links you provided, lead me to this: Introduction to
> Multi-Agent systems
> > >
> https://cw.fel.cvut.cz/b191/_media/courses/be4m36mas/mas2016-l01-introduction.pdf
> > > Would you say this is a good start for understanding where the
> research on this topic is at?
> > > Would love to read if you could share any links
> > >
> > >
> > > I think the above course is already a nice introduction to autonomous
> agents and multi-agent systems (MAS), another course with hands-on
> exercises & tutorials:
> https://www.emse.fr/~boissier/enseignement/maop20-fall/index.html
> > >
> > > This course is focused on multi-agent oriented programming [1] and the
> JaCaMo platform, which is one of the main platforms for MAS (additional
> documentation and tutorials on GitHub):
> https://github.com/jacamo-lang/jacamo
> > >
> > > [1] Olivier Boissier, Rafael H. Bordini, Jomi F. Hübner, Alessandro
> Ricci, Andrea Santi, Multi-agent oriented programming with JaCaMo, Science
> of Computer Programming, Volume 78, Issue 6, 2013, Pages 747-761, ISSN
> 0167-6423, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scico.2011.10.004. Link to PDF:
> https://www.sciencedirect.com/sdfe/reader/pii/S016764231100181X/pdf
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi Andrei!
> > >
> > > Thanks so much for sharing this, I've read a bit of it, and from what
> I can gather it's a java platform with:
> > >
> > > Jason -- AgentSpeak command and programming language -- Agents
> > >
> > > Cartago -- Like a virtual machine for funning agents -- Environment
> > >
> > > Moise -- OO style way of organizing agents -- Organization
> > >
> > > Thanks alot this is very interesting, and a whole new area for me to
> look at, with a bit of a learning curve.  There seems lots of useful things
> in there that it's possible to reuse
> > >
> > > My interest is along the lines of multi agent systems, that scale to
> the web, and are programming language agnostic, but communicate with each
> other over, for example, http requests, and link to each other e.g. with
> JSON(-LD)
> > >
> > > I'd love your input on this.  My experience of programming web based
> agents is that they have a maintenance overhead, such the autonomy is not
> really practical, I may call the ones I've made semi-autonomous.  This is
> akin to the desktop paradigm, where you might start an app, use it for a
> while and then shut it down (agent lifecycle).  I am quite interested in
> another style of app, where it runs as a daemon, e.g. in the system tray.
> So you run it, and it keeps going in the background.  When you shut
> your machine down it'll stop, and reboot the machine it runs on startup, so
> it's kind of always there, you don thave to worry about it, like a daemon
> > >
> > > Multi agent systems that run more or less as daemons against the web
> as a (read-write) state machine have the advantage of much lower
> maintenance, and interesting emergent features as they become more
> autonomous and interact with each other.  The system itself would be
> modular, with reusable components that could be composed together either
> into a composite agent, or different parts running remotely.  They would
> also adapt to change, and be backwards compatible with the existing web (of
> data)
> > >
> > > So they may not even need a JaCaMo type environment to run in, but
> could reuse the organizational and agent speak features
> > >
> > > Would love to know your thoughts on this, if it's an area people
> research, or a direction researchers in the field might want to look at
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Also looking forward to the environments being released on 22 May.
> Not being an academic myself, Im hesitant to try and submit an agent to
> solve the maze, or turn the lights off in the building
> > >
> > >
> > > If you are interested to hack away with some Web-enabled devices, we
> also have a couple of robotic arms that we are happy to share. :-)
> > >
> > > You can access these robots via HTTP and we have a live video feed for
> each:
> > > https://interactions.ics.unisg.ch/61-102/cam1/live-stream
> > > https://interactions.ics.unisg.ch/61-102/cam2/live-stream
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I'd love to find out how to control a robotic arm with a robot, yes! :)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > One of the robots is hooked up to a lamp that turns on when you
> activate the robot, so you can use it regardless of your time zone (our lab
> is in St.Gallen, Switzerland).
> > >
> > > Let me know if you are interested to use these robots and I am happy
> to send you additional details & documentation.
> > >
> > > Best wishes,
> > > Andrei
> > >
> > > --
> > > Dr. Andrei Ciortea
> > > Interaction- and Communication-based Systems
> > > Institute of Computer Science
> > > University of St.Gallen
> > > https://interactions.ics.unisg.ch/
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 21 May 2021, at 23:56, Tobias Käfer <tobias.kaefer@kit.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Melvin,
> > >
> > > Am 21.05.21 um 19:51 schrieb Melvin Carvalho:
> > >
> > > Thanks for sharing this fascinating topic.  I'm very much interested
> in autonomous agents on the read-write web.  I have built a few of these in
> the past, and they seem to lack teeth..  The phrase "where are all the
> agents" resonates with me, and motivates me to try and look for something
> more robust
> > > Browsing the links you provided, lead me to this: Introduction to
> Multi-Agent systems
> > >
> https://cw.fel.cvut.cz/b191/_media/courses/be4m36mas/mas2016-l01-introduction.pdf
> > > Would you say this is a good start for understanding where the
> research on this topic is at?
> > > Would love to read if you could share any links
> > >
> > >
> > > That's a general introduction to MAS, and probably does not reflect so
> much the web part.  Some would maybe think that already single agents doing
> useful things on the web would be a step forward.  A more webby rough
> introduction in which I was involved could be a tutorial at the IoT
> conference [1].  In my echo chamber, we often use Linked Data-Fu [2] for
> rule-based simple reflex agents.  I have CC'ed Andrei who may give you some
> more pointers from his perspective.
> > >
> > > [1] http://people.aifb.kit.edu/co1683/2020/iot-tutorial/
> > > [2] http://linked-data-fu.github.io/
> > >
> > > Also looking forward to the environments being released on 22 May.
> Not being an academic myself, Im hesitant to try and submit an agent to
> solve the maze, or turn the lights off in the building
> > >
> > >
> > > No need to be afraid. We love practical things. The environments
> released are the maze and the building.
> > >
> > > I'm also interested in any submissions to this challenge, including
> evolutionary agents.  This little demo of fish as agents in an evolutionary
> environment with finite resources I really like because it has emergent
> properties:
> > > http://caza.la/shoal/
> > >
> > >
> > > Cool stuff!
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > >
> > > Tobias
> > >
> > >
>
>
> Henry Story
>
> https://co-operating.systems
> WhatsApp, Signal, Tel: +33 6 38 32 69 84‬
> Twitter: @bblfish
>
>