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