W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-solid@w3.org > March 2019

Re: The Default

From: Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2019 22:00:44 +1000
Message-ID: <CAM1Sok2Z4umqfXtywn4eEAzZFVu8bNT+P2pwysVZT96m-Pkm7Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mitzi László <mitzil@inrupt.com>
Cc: public-solid <public-solid@w3.org>
Mitzi,

you have a journey in front of you filled with lots of wonderful learning
experiences.

no, there will be no one-world-government controlling a global
web-id-registry.  Any confusion about this may be bad for inrupt.

part of the reason why i did not work for a commercial organisation whilst
seeking to form the 'human centric' design requirements via various
standards initiatives relating to solid - was that, one cannot wear too
many hats / conflicts of interest.

therein - there weren't traditionally organisations interested in helping
humans own their own data, rather - the focus was on usury / turning humans
into consumers, with data-based 'golden handcuffs'.

My works on RWW, Credentials, WebPayments and the other pieces - are
towards  group effort that is designed to produce a decentralised
framework, free of choke-points able to be repurposed by the power-hungry.

On Sat, 16 Mar 2019 at 20:33, Mitzi László <mitzil@inrupt.com> wrote:

> Hi W3C Solid Community Group,
>
> In preparation for our call next Thursday I wanted to share some thoughts
> on the following agenda item:
>
>    - Discuss possibility of Solid Design Requirements Specification in
>    particular the potential for defining the default data sharing settings in
>    such a way that the user is protected while able to engage at a minimum
>    level.
>
>
> I have begun to write the Solid spec chronologically i.e. detailing the
> technical requirements when they are relevant to the user journey. It is a
> very rough draft. The purpose of this thought experiment is not to restrict
> the path, rather to identify where the default design is critical and if
> there are any technical requirements that if done by a single party would
> result in a conflict of interest to the core values of Solid. I would like
> to talk about the minimum.
>
> As homo sapiens, the default tends to be our choice, we are lazy. Rather
> than fight our natural wiring (which anyone who went on a diet can tell you
> is tough) I think we should reflect on the default to make sure it
> represents our more considered choices and defined values.
>
> Pat’s work on G consent could be a very useful reference to build on
> http://openscience.adaptcentre.ie/ontologies/GConsent/docs/ontology
>
> Depending on our conversations next week perhaps this could be a new
> repository on the Solid GitHub.
>
> Please excuse me for using Microsoft Word, however, it illustrates the
> point I am trying to make rather neatly.
>
> Mitzi
>
>
>
>
Received on Saturday, 16 March 2019 12:00:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:26:39 UTC