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

identity model

From: Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2019 22:39:19 +1000
Message-ID: <CAM1Sok2sEwobH5Z4vCyN4JSHmF1ZLivRouNFH6PqDGDVS7eGrQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-solid <public-solid@w3.org>
I think it would be helpful to clarify the identity model embraced by the
solid standards work.

I do think, there is a difference between artificial things (software,
companies, 'identifiers'), real things (human beings, flora, fauna, etc.)
and conceptual things such as language and how to represent groups.

yet this ideological position is often adjunct to the descriptions provided
in law, which differ based on jurisdictional coverage (direct or indirect).

'identity' is often, imho, a dirty word.  I've therefore employed the term
inforg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inforg but therein also,

another intricacy is considered within the field of a verifiable claim (and
the semantic use of the claim as a constituent embodiment - ie: over 18, or
nationality, or other inferencing related procedural models) authentication
or 'tamper evidence' or access control - technical method; and, the
concepts brought about with an intelligent agent acting on behalf of a
natural agent.

whilst perhaps described poorly - my point is,

one of the greatest risks to solid, imho, hinges upon the meaningful
communication of this 'identity model' as is manifested by solid standards,
for interop purposes, et.al.

many of the 'identity solutions' online today, don't even take into account
nationality, and therefore have little to do with supporting a natural
persons relationship to a land ruled by law.

this is one of the many very important design issues.  I have faith, but
perhaps we do need better documentation / work undertaken - to bring
clarity to what is otherwise either very good, or very bad.

I wouldn't want to see solid turn into the worlds best honey-pot solution
for parties who careless for rule of law as made accessible for humanity.
i do also know, this weaves into some of the 'contract for the web' stuff;
alongside the work of many other w3c groups, whose works were required to
form a derivative (set of) answer(s) to this question.

IMHO it is most important that technology serves the natural world, and
humanity as a constituent of that natural world.  many strategic works seek
to do the opposite.  This is often 'confused' (or linked?) with capitalism,
as some suggestions say that capitalism is about employing the natural
world as a resource that is in-turn labelled a commodity for sale / profit
generation.  therein, the web has been using the resource of time of people
(attention) as a resource to be commodified, which in-turn powers
fake-news, etc.

Perhaps we could try building a VPN that's pre-configured to turn off
anything supplied by google, facebook and the few others; then see how
useful the web is.  what works, and what does not.

This in-turn could be an experiment that could be used to evaluate our
needs with regard to defining what we're talking about doing to humanity in
defining an 'identity model'..

i'd prefer one based upon reality.  i think it's deeply unethical to
undermine the means through which others are treated with dignity, by
purposefully shifting the semantics relating to how they are evaluated and
in-turn experience life..   The easy short-hand way to explain this is
'fake news', but i'd also highlight that there's a bunch of very
interesting work about consciousness which i've been studying highlighting
the importance of information in the formation of 'reality' for human
beings.

 So,

what's the solid model.?

timo.
Received on Saturday, 16 March 2019 12:39:17 UTC

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