Re: Coherent (modern) definition of RWW

I note the follow-on posts by Nathan & Jonas,
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rww/2021May/0034.html
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rww/2021May/0035.html

Kingsley, bless you... (quickest way of saying it).

Perhaps (subject to defining something that can be employed for a CG 'vote'
or support) the next milestone may be to figure out what it is we need to
define to proceed safely...  alongside scope...

I am mindful of the process whereby credentials (verifiable claims task
force) was born out of payments cg.

This may mean an outline that declares requirements that remain 'unmet' or
('non-comply / partially comply');  yet, you've given some fairly concrete
& useful notes about WIP (work in progress) definitions.  I think also,
Melvin's input is instrumental...  but till then...,

I am mindful of the potential (enormous) benefits of defining what tooling
we may better require to have a capacity to do work on a basis that we've
got some basic stuff to 'practice as we' (intent to) preach; which in-turn
also means, we'll iterate along the way to make it better...  I'm probably
better off trying to help with how that's documented for the purposes of
seeking support to get that stuff done; than defining it, as i think others
are likely better stewards?

(seeking to balance 'who i am', with 'how i best contribute', alongside
consideration for legacy issues / things i cannot resolve / is not my
field, etc.  humility - in basic terms).  This sort of thing has been
demonstrated with how the Solid work has developed, and whilst i think we
might be able to iterate to get a better process / solution; the concept is
not without merit (and probably doesn't require a VC funded entity to get
done?  more on that, much later...?   IMO needs to be 'public good' / 'for
purpose' work, but contributors shouldn't need to be made homeless, or
similar.  maslows stuff, is important)

also therein; i note, people have gone to war previously, died in trenches,
whose works impacted far less.  I have been considerate of this ideological
position had by elders; yet, there's a difference between what people 'must
do' and what should / could be defined as a sustainable approach. The
Webizen project didn't sort that out well, i have the domain (webizen.org)
presently; happy for it to be used, i got it, for the purposes of seeking
to protect it.  for good purpose (not necessarily my own, not intended to
be 'for me', other than, in consideration of moral factors about myself and
many others).

Perhaps therein; an outline that kinda says 'whereas' (we tried these
things and it didn't work); nowtherefore...  as to end-up with something
that's a little like medium or something:?  worth workshopping, imo.
Providing a means to enhance our biosphere and attend to extostential risks
places upon humanity and liberalised democracies, shouldn't necessarily be
put upon those who are 'happily engaged' in some form of 'web slavery' as
to get an outcome for others; that's not sustainably made...

others, with far more capacity than myself; should, in my opinion, have
better made points in these areas, because the illustration made to the
kids of those persons who've been working on it; well, hopefully they'll be
able to call those persons when those kids grow-up and ask 'why', and
whatever, when they're adults.

Because, a dissociative social framework is incapable of supporting a
representative democracy. IMO.



On Mon, 17 May 2021 at 23:40, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
wrote:

> On 5/17/21 8:44 AM, Timothy Holborn wrote:
> > The concept of RWW started a long time ago.
>
>
> Yes, it is as old as the World Wide Web (Web) itself.
>

as an 'idea' yep, but that hasn't translated very well..  so, work is
required, in a soulfully coherent manner.  I am mindful of Noam Chomsky's
notes when i hassled him about 'moral grammar' , links to faith.
in-effect... particularly for those agents who have agency.  not so much
(sadly) for others (yet?)...


> The Web is simply a document network constructed from hyperlinks
> (specifically HTTP URIs) that denote:
>
> 1. Entities of type Document
>
> 2. Entity Relationship Types that are transitive in nature i.e.,
> "links_to" relation .
>

intrinsically associated with a fragment identifier?

FWIW - is there a 'spec' or some documentation about how that might work
dynamically, perhaps also incorporating considerations around temporal
queries (which, i think, should be at 'web scale', so any references in a
'document' refer to the temporally associated targets of links; not modern
(alternative) versions...??

>
> An unfortunate characteristic of the Web is that there isn't consensus
> regarding:
>
> 1. Entity Identifiers
> 2. Entity Types
> 3. Entity Relationship Types e.g., what is the canonical "links_to"
> relation and what is its identifier?
>
> So confusion reigns leaving opportunity for abuse and detrimental
> exploitation as the world has experienced en masse re:
>
> 1. Quixotic state of Democracy
>
> 2. COVID-19 Pandemic
>
> 3. Misinformation and Fake News
>

Seems reasonable to assume we both know the list is far, far bigger...  for
every independent agent; alongside 'group' effects, broadly.  TimBL: has
spoken about his intent on many occasions, although a recent note:
https://youtu.be/rCplocVemjo?t=300 gives some degree of direct
consideration; it would take more time to collate the others, having
learned of their existence over many years, to put forward a query seeking
modern day clarification & 'score card' (akin to a SLA or KPI assessment).

With respect to multi-media identifiers (big deal, particularly re: kids /
synthetic media);

some work has been done in *some* of these areas, that could be put
together into a documentation format?    https://www.mico-project.eu/ did
some work on Sparql-mm (multimedia fragments, linked to 'standardised' /
addressible, signature schema?) that has fairly big implications, imo.  but
poorly documented. Yet, therein also; the mico project works; didn't really
think about decentralised 'commons' that are able to be queried locally via
decentralised assets (or permissions frameworks linked to that).



>
> >
> > Question posed is;
> >
> > What's the modern (well referenced) definition?  (Incremental growth
> > of past "definitions, etc.  Perhaps therein also, better clarity of
> > previously assumed characteristics / constituencies, etc.)
>
>
> A Read-Write Web is a hyperlink-based network that offers both read and
> write capabilities to its users. Nothing has changed, bar increased
> murkiness surrounding:
>
> 1. Identity
> 2. Identification
> 3. Authentication
> 4. Authorization
> 5. Storage
>
> I've had the good fortune to have had the opportunity to Hassle - Roger
Clarke ( http://www.rogerclarke.com/ ) alot (not just intellectually, but
also emotionally - difficult topic map

I was both worried for my life, and upset about the way works with ISOC-AU
was developing. It is a very small group of persons, and one of their
board-members ended their lives...

https://www.internet.org.au/agm-2017/40-agm-2017/198-peter-tonoli-candidate-statement
https://www.efa.org.au/2020/03/13/vale-peter-tonoli/
https://carleytonoli.medium.com/two-lost-souls-swimming-in-a-fishbowl-my-friendship-with-julian-assange-f6326ba19c30

Roger has been involved with ISOC-AU for sometime...  He is one of 2
privacy medallion winners, in AU.  Works in this area have been dangerous,
harmful, and without available lawful remedy nor adequate support,
particularly for persons who are not retired.. as noted, there's a list of
people, no 'stars on walls' no war memorial or retired services league, to
help with the trauma people have, re: cyberwars (grey, or otherwise) or how
to identify those engaged in 'friendly fire', of which, roger is not like
that at all.  indeed, fairly remarkable man, imo. AFAIK.);

Roger illustrated a point about 'edification' clearly, early on (via his
writings), which is a very nuanced (& important) concept / term.  I think
the best resource may be: http://www.rogerclarke.com/EC/IdMngt-0804.html
but there's a few ( ie: try -
https://www.google.com/search?q=nym+site:www.rogerclarke.com )

(i've bcc'd him - nb: https://www.w3.org/community/rww/ to join).

the format you've provided is awesome; yet, i wonder whether there's
different layers to it; so, whilst its not entirely like:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQGX3J6DAGw for 'consumers',

Seems to me the 5 dot-points outline scope; but not necessarily solution?
IDK. I will work on it a bit...


> >
> > A few substantial papers have been written on it, historically.
>
>
> Yes, and they've achieve little if anything -- IMHO.
>

agreed.  depending on the definition.  'achieved little 'good' if
anything?'


>
> >
> > So, What are some basic truths about the scope of works, and it's
> > place in a broader ecosystem?
> >
> > To illustrate the deliberation / question: (as distinct to a "brand
> > name" alternative framework; that may have differences),
> >
> > - RWW Builds upon LDP?
>
>
> LDP is a poorly named RWW protocol.
>

lol...

>
>
> > - concerns multi-agent use of web-cloud or web-server infrastructure?
>
>
> Conceptually yes, but cannot work practically without clarity about
> items 1-5 above. Unfortunately, these waters remain murky for political
> rather than technical reasons -- IMHO.
>

agreed.  notwithstanding note about complexities involved in fit for
purpose' definition of 1-5 (or ecosystems / modal approaches, that may be
differentially labeled?  IDK yet.  terms have been made murky and i expect,
in an open environment, will continue to be subject to those sorts of
problems..?)

>
>
> > - Relates to the permissive use of software agents? (If so, how?)
>
>
> See comment above.
>
>
> > - is built upon HTTP(s/a/'X') agents?
> >
> > V2 supports
> > - "tamper evident" provenance in (a yet to be determined) defined way?
> > - supports informatics sources from decentralised agents (or:
> > "blockchains")
> > - temporal uniformity of semantic queries on a temporaral basis (or:
> > decentralised temporal queries?)
> >
> > I thought I'd pose the points as a question rather than as a
> > statement, in seeking to be constructive...
>
>
> It boils down to solving the murkiness around items 1-5 above, IMHO.
>

agreed,

I was elated by your feedback.  the situation seems overwhelming atm, so,
hope, enormously valuable commodity...


>
> Kingsley
>
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Timothy Holborn.
>

Timothy Holborn.

> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Kingsley Idehen
> Founder & CEO
> OpenLink Software
> Home Page: http://www.openlinksw.com
> Community Support: https://community.openlinksw.com
> Weblogs (Blogs):
> Company Blog: https://medium.com/openlink-software-blog
> Virtuoso Blog: https://medium.com/virtuoso-blog
> Data Access Drivers Blog:
> https://medium.com/openlink-odbc-jdbc-ado-net-data-access-drivers
>
> Personal Weblogs (Blogs):
> Medium Blog: https://medium.com/@kidehen
> Legacy Blogs: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen/
>               http://kidehen.blogspot.com
>
> Profile Pages:
> Pinterest: https://www.pinterest.com/kidehen/
> Quora: https://www.quora.com/profile/Kingsley-Uyi-Idehen
> Twitter: https://twitter.com/kidehen
> Google+: https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about
> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
>
> Web Identities (WebID):
> Personal: http://kingsley.idehen.net/public_home/kidehen/profile.ttl#i
>         :
> http://id.myopenlink.net/DAV/home/KingsleyUyiIdehen/Public/kingsley.ttl#this
>
>
>