Re: Coherent (modern) definition of RWW

Re two aspects of your email only, sorry.

1.  WWW aimed to deliver a very limited sub-set of hypertext.  (That was
    of course a master-stroke, which is why it worked/works.  Agreed:
    for some, now highly unsatisfactory, interpretation of 'works').

    Your project needs to be built on a much more comprehensive
    foundation, the presumably mythical, 'full spec' of hypertext.

    If that conceptual foundation could finally be made real, a lot of
    layers of standards would have to be rebuilt over it, and it's
    unlikely that many of them could be simply ported across ...

2.  Re '(Id)Entities (Mis)Management:  The Mythologies underlying the
    Business Failures'  http://www.rogerclarke.com/EC/IdMngt-0804.html

    The exposition of the model underlying it (textual and diagrammatic
    not formal!) is here:

    'A Sufficiently Rich Model of (Id)entity, Authentication and
    Authorisation'   http://www.rogerclarke.com/ID/IdModel-1002.html

    I've only this year managed to get back to that project.  I've
    drafted a paper that documents the metatheoretic underpinnings of
    the model (ontological, epistemological and axiological).
    I haven't even done a first-round re-read of it yet:

    A Pragmatic Metatheoretic Model for Information Systems Practice
    and Research      http://rogerclarke.com/SOS/POEisy.html

    I'm halfway through the re-write of the 2010 version of the main
    article, to reflect that metatheory.  Already it's evident that a
    couple of key mods to the overview diagram are needed - of course.

Regards  ...  Roger

P.S.  Although I was sporadically involved with Peter Tonoli for a few
years, particularly on the Board of Internet Australia, I've only met
Carley Tonoli once.  I had no idea of the depth, and poignancy, of her
back-story.  Thanks for passing this on:
https://carleytonoli.medium.com/two-lost-souls-swimming-in-a-fishbowl-my-friendship-with-julian-assange-f6326ba19c30

___________________


On 18/5/21 1:40 am, Timothy Holborn wrote:
> 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 <http://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
> <mailto: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
> 
> 


-- 
Roger Clarke                            mailto:Roger.Clarke@xamax.com.au
T: +61 2 6288 6916   http://www.xamax.com.au  http://www.rogerclarke.com

Xamax Consultancy Pty Ltd      78 Sidaway St, Chapman ACT 2611 AUSTRALIA

Visiting Professor in the Faculty of Law            University of N.S.W.
Visiting Professor in Computer Science    Australian National University

Received on Monday, 17 May 2021 21:04:49 UTC