(human) identity fabric (agents concepts linked)

I needed personally, to make a point about MY intentions with respect to
the web-payments / credentials work; and (historically) considerations
around WebID which led me to this (w3c) forum.

I found WebID-TLS and thereby contacted henry story, which led to others.
but the underpinning consideration with respect to WebID-TLS was about
'device' semantics; which led to a 'rabbit hole' filled with issues, linked
to KYC/AML; and other big issues.

At the time, KYC/AML works were mostly proprietary, seeking to capitalise
upon royalties.  Due to the widespread implications of what are kinda
similar to 'postage marks' (given postal laws); the implications were
enormous, so, it was important to broaden what WebID & WebID-[auth]
provided; to support semantics that were more 'flexible' (cohesive 'fabric'
linked frameworks).

This led to enormous 'disruption' between two major groups; one that i'd
call the 'json-ld' crew, the other the turtle crew; although, i was always
mindful of N3 'speak' (docs).

The point was about 'identity' in consideration of human agency / personal
extension of 'self' via AI; something, from a prosthetics point of view, i
know, having grown up with a prosthetic eye; and all that goes with that
experience through school, life, etc.

The fundamental issue was about 'truth telling infrastructure'.  whilst
thought to be far easier, much early on, believing 'everyone wants it',
I've since been 'schooled'...

but then; half the worlds population have gone into lock-down
simultaneously, a feat not feasible prior to broadband for any species;
and, given the population likely went up, and my family background re:
pathology - lets just set my thoughts about that aside, for now.  of
course, legal identity for all of humanity is important; but, how....
meritoriously....  I think, people loose sight of 'reality', are
dissociated & fail to understand that humanity, is heading towards an
advent that i call a 'knowledge age', which is far more difficult to get to
in 'competitive' (often corrupt & harmful, betting on a disabled legal
system) behaviours in our 'liberalised democracies; vs. 'competitors'...

Most people don't care about 'artificial stuff', they care about 'biosphere
stuff' and for the most part (kinda due to socioeconomics led by 'western
world groups') live in poverty; often without clean water (although, they
may have a bunch of plastics pollution and a cell phone)...  So - the 'mkt'
about enrollment of 'spirit', seems kinda corrupt, imo.

I am concerned that my well-meaning behaviours / decisions / works; have
led to bad.

So, a point that probably needs to be made; consequentially,

(i believe AU is a place, where we can make 'stuff' to support our world.
nonetheless).

WebID is a URI that is in-effect dynamic in nature.  In-order to support
'privacy' (or dignity) a means to have a protected institutional URI
framework, was seemingly required.

WebID-[auth] (ie: WebID-TLS) is fairly essential for IoT applications.
Including HbbTV, that i had some experience related to, a long time ago...
the TLS certificate linked to the TV set; could work, with WebID-TLS and
therefore, provide semantics as an 'agent' (device) that in-turn could rely
upon other semantics for personalisation.  this isn't the only
consideration linked to this concept (nb: broadcast capable 'radios', etc)
but its part of it...

many devices are used in different ways - personally.  so, a computer is
different to a phone or whatever; but they've got different interfaces, so
what if a AUTH mechanism could provide the semantics to swipe a persons
bank-card on a phone, to personalise (and protect) a session based use of
that device; without it being controlled by 'silos'...

(gimme the link, where that's been said before; or else, know and say -
knowledge or information age???  pick one, not both.).

So the problem about 'device semantics' was that it didn't 'cope with' the
semantics required for 'out of band' agents...   indeed, that's fairly
unsupported broadly...

SO, that's where 'verifiable claims' fit into an ecosystem; that was
moreover about how to produce (functional) semantic agents..  thereafter
also, HTTPA works evolved in a way that appeared to be solved via DID URI
schema (block-chains / DLTs, etc.); but, given the politics, i wonder
whether the initiative will be re-evolved, for complex reasons.

Overall; the underlying intent; was to create complex AUTH / Endification /
Identification fabric capabilities; that could in-turn, support complex
(hyper-private) semantics, that could only be brought about
post-technological growth; with support of political will...  i"m not sure
that' going to happen (in the western world, first or at all); but,  i
wanted to make a note that the examples provided by openlink software
(virtuoso) or Project Hydra (samvera nowadays?) didn't have enough
functionality back in 2011/2; as such, i sought to improve it, to support -
human beings, unto 'rule of law', for a moral economy, etc...

I understand, those sorts of ambitions were fairly naive from that time;
but, I don't see how we're better off now after so many years of
investment...

the old 'explainer' examples are found:
http://mediaprophet.org/ux_KB/page4115294.html#0 check the HTTP headers for
the date...

things have developed since, but i'm not sure yet; how that supports global
cyber peace-fair (fair dealings).  I suspect those most involved in
conflict will continue to be most protected... so... let your kids know,
the levy...  they'll have to sort it out, or so it seems...

underlying such points; and the point of posting it here, is that, the
underlying 'storage method' (similar to a HTTP server) was that a
multi-tenanted solution could be forged via RWW (extending upon LDP).

Cheers.

Timothy Holborn.
http://trustfactory.com.au/