Re: The Default

On Thu, 21 Mar 2019 at 11:22, Mitzi László <mitzil@inrupt.com> wrote:

> Hi Timo,
>
> Thank you doing a re-take and sharing ideas to build on.
>

Could you outline the purpose of this doc.

Are these personal thoughts, or designed to be part of some "official"
discourse, or our group.


>
>
> Mitzi
>
> On 16 Mar 2019, at 23:35, Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Heya,
>
> I realised i did not respond in a manner that was supportive of your
> initial attempts.  I've thereafter put your doc into a google Doc[1] and
> have started to make comments (edits, in comment mode) - noting, i was
> unable to transfer ownership which was my intention (google told me, it
> needed to be transferred from the same domain - so, i couldn't do it).
>
> The first question i have - is it your intention to produce this document
> as a w3c Solid CG document? noting the particulars with respect to the IPR
> management implicit with W3C CG (and later IG/WG) works.  If not, then i'm
> happy to start a new document - whilst assuming otherwise that this must
> have been your intent
>
> Second point is that specs usually go into a standard type of template,
> here's an example[2].  I note therein - there's a bunch of related specs
> (ie: LDP, SPARQL, RDF, HTML/HTML5, HTTP, Verifiable Claims (?), WebID,
> WebID-TLS, WebID-OIDC, LDN, WebSockets, Web of Things, WebRTC, various
> ontologies - ie: FOAF & the list goes on...) that could be culminated into
> a document that helps to provide pointers to the ecosystem components.
> Therein, the other method used for documentation is Wiki pages.  I was
> alerted to a wiki form that's solid compatible[3][4] whilst noting, the
> 'official W3 solid CG' wiki is here[5].
>
> Thereafter - here's a bunch of Thoughts / notes... IMHO.
>
> INITIAL NOTES  (IMHO)
>
>
> 1. W3C SPECs vs. Ideological frameworks
> This is always problematic.  There are various motivators for various
> persons, who are involved in 'standards work' via various means - some,
> investment backed (with not enough revenue for sustainability) where
> investors have different ideas / needs; others, 'starving artists', others
> - corporates with incorporated agenda, etc.
>
> W3C Specs from the CG need members buy-in to work.  some examples includes
> history with payments works[6][7] which are now instrumental constituent
> objects to 'solid', afaik.
>
> Specs do need objective parts; yet, imho - enabling a variety of
> implementation methods is more considerate of the needs of 'standards'
> rather than the means to use a standards process to cement a 'rent seeking
> position', that isn't necessarily going to work out for the document
> authors / editors in any case.
>
> Which brings me to point (2)
>
> 2. 'human being centric' or 'human centric' vs. 'person centred' or 'agent
> centric'
>
> The solid specs, afaik, essentially provide flexibility about
> implementation strategies.  These implementation strategies will be
> employed via a specified ideological approach by spec implementers - but
> this is not necessarily the same across the ecological environment brought
> about by the spec's existence - which does in-turn, seek to support
> interoperability rather than ideological application of a certain view upon
> all.
>
> Therein - there is the thing i call 'human centric'[8] requires a bunch of
> apparatus that is external to W3C, and now seemingly underway.
> Alternatives may include 'person centric'  which then brings about
> implications about companies being considered by text of law persons[9]
> (which then, brought about a means to make a distinction about natural
> persons by works relating to the concept of natural persons being
> 'consumers'[10]).
>
> Agent centric extends beyond the 'person centric' stuff - and starts to
> add software, such as AI agents - whether they be the 'things' 'driving'
> 'self driving vehicles', or otherwise.  These sorts of considerations are
> technically required, no-matter how the accountability frameworks are
> designed to bring accountability in defence of victims.
>
> Some may prefer a world where if the AI agent does the wrong thing, it's
> considered in a manner similar to 'act of god' and nothing is done;
> others, are very frightened about what the implications of this traditional
> type of 'corporate view' may have upon humanity and the natural world.
>
> yet - the problem is, when defining w3c specifications for 'solid' - the
> solid platform may well be a good option for being employed as the
> underlying 'web operating system' or 'network based operating system'
> foundation for a self-driving vehicle (whether it be car or wheelchair)
> that may in-turn communicate with other agents to ensure the occupant isn't
> harmed (particularly good for wheelchairs, seeking to ensure someone
> doesn't come-out of their driveway and run-over the wheelchair, for
> instance); therein - this is an 'agent centric' approach (using the vocab
> definition used by FOAF).
>
> 3.  Distinction between a WebID and a WebID-[AUTH-SEQUENCE] - enormously
> important stuff.  There is also 'patterning' happening with the creds work,
> that needs to be addressed by way of implementations, which IMHO in-turn
> requires definition of the 'intelligent agent' thing - that i think is
> intended to exist within the 'solid specs'?
>
> 4. DYO (Define Your Own) Robot
> The robot needs ontologies.  If the robot is controlled by a company (or
> old-world-robot) then this needs to be declared as to make a master/slave
> arrangement between the responsible actor, and its subordinates, which
> in-turn need to be addressable for other agents.
>
> 5. SemWeb Addressable URIs (Inc. DIDs?)
> This is rather kinda important, imho.  A definition needs to exist.  I'm
> not sure if its about HTTP, or SPARQL Addressability, etc.  I've looked
> into various related links[11][12][13]; whilst not knowing / understanding
> what the 'standards related' interop spec - should look like, at this stage.
>
> 6. pseudo-anon WebID's / URIs
> Providers could, in theory, provide a URI string that supplies a WebID &
> related data/support stuff, in a manner that keeps the real identity of the
> URI owner confidential to the provider (which is therefore able to be
> subjected to lawful request, facilitate KYC/AML, etc.);  I do not see these
> semantics declared in almost any of the solid related works (perhaps its an
> 'at this stage' type of problem?).
>
> 7. Final thoughts on document
> IMHO - this document needs to be broken down into constituent objects.
> there are many issues with it ATM, so far as i consider, and some of the
> resolutions do indeed need new work to be done.  embracing the leadership
> role of inrupt is essential to doing so, noting that whilst it is amongst
> potential lead implementers (thinking also of openlinksw in particular, but
> not exclusively) - there are some questions in there that are less about
> specs, and more about business models.
>
> Therein - this is difficult work to do.  There is nothing about payments
> in the document, and the fact is that people only exist due to
> socio-ECONOMIC capacities made available for them to do so, there is no
> world where human beings (homo sapiens = wise man) live with dignity &
> wisdom whilst being devoid in their lives of economic attributions, or that
> they be considered a cost/burden upon society, as a consequence of seeking
> to do good (as apposed to dealing drugs or the many other socially bad
> things to do, that harm people, but have direct economic attributions that
> assist those who make such choices do indeed get paid for doing so.
>
> The dignity equastion, or kindness equations relating to 'knowledge
> workers' needs to be addressed; by implication therein, the concern nations
> may have is that the purpose of government relates to distribution of funds
> (which means people must be economically attributable, other than as a
> consumer) and law;  so, in-order to make it clear that solid is NOT a plan
> to strip nations of their revenue & systems of evidence that enable their
> 'rule of law' to function (as is indirectly the implication) as to be
> managed worldwide - - > solid needs to demonstrate how it is that its
> systems design 'philosophical engineering' strategies, improve attributable
> personhood whilst also attending to emerging issues in IoT, AR, AI, etc.
>
> I think it is the case that solid is the best placed project able to
> demonstrate how it is designed from the ground-up in a manner that is able
> to meet these various challenges, but therein are the pragmatics of
> invest-ability which in-turn relates to ontological design[14].
>
> This in-turn creates an underpinning object relating to the manner through
> which solid seeks to render 'treatment' over what be deemed 'the commons',
> and how informatics artifacts relating to the commons is made discoverable
> and under what terms should 'commons' be made manageable, and able to be
> used privately by persons - in a manner that could be akin to the ability
> to use language objects in your head, when looking at a tree.
>
> How and what does Solid do, in consideration of what may in-future be
> considered 'thought crime'...    How does solid - define ontologically, the
> distinction between what an agent thought about - and what an agent did,
> and how it may be discovered in relation to what be considered 'low
> distortion ratios' for 'reality' as experienced by 'data subjects' as a
> part of their life.  Therein a diagram (created sometime ago)
> https://www.webizen.net.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Credential-enabled-Identity-5.svg
> - whereby that view formed by a judge - that's kinda what it gets down to
> at the end of the day...
>
> Living in a world where there is data about wrong-doing that causes
> death/injury, but due to the access control frameworks asserts to the data
> about any such situation forming a revocation category from its use to save
> a life, in a court of law - that's a fairly undignified implementation
> strategy, particularly where the rationale of 'privacy' is used to form any
> such allowance for beneficiaries.
>
> Thereafter - the document (PG:13) asks "Who should be responsible for
> governing the WebID registry? An institution? How to build trust? How to
> finance?"
>
> There's a few problems to this concept, imho. for instance, a 'WebID' may
> be psuedo-anonymous.  Yet the answer, in-turn brings about the need to
> undertake a bunch of other works, that are not about w3c standards.  It
> could be a w3 business group - but i'm not sure what the economics are to
> establishing any such group.
>
> IMHO - there's a seperate 'thing' that's about an 'ethics bound
> implementation alliance' - which i think may be different to timBLs work
> on a contract for the the web (as a whole), whilst noting - perhaps it
> could grow into becoming an 'optional protocol', much like many other
> 'human rights', agreements of international standing...
>
> hope that helps.
>
> I suggest, the economic & ontology work are perhaps amongst the highest of
> priorities; but this is hard to define in a manner i'm satisfactorily
> convinced has merit - given there are so many moving parts. Theory is, if
> we have ontology work happening, and a means to do
> micro-payments attributions relating to the works of persons (even if, the
> POC is managed centrally via inrupt as to manage KYC/AML related stuff)
> then, we'd be in a better place to parcel up work, and get it all done.
>
> If there's a list of commercial sponsors that are known today - awesome -
> very interested to see the list of who they are...  ASAP.
>
> IMHO - we're messing with the infrastructure that's forming a diffused
> distortion array impactful upon those living with consciousness[15][16].
> So, unlike other territories of commodification of natural resources, it's
> kinda important this stuff is considered in a manner that keeps the dignity
> of others - at the heart of ones purpose; or moreover - these are my
> thoughts,
>
> I have faith in those of others, but i'm not entirely sure how an
> 'on-boarding' approach should or could work...   Some of the thinking,
> imho, is fairly foreign to all too many agents...
>
> but therein - perhaps that has more to do with my reality, than those of
> others.  Noam speaks of 'moral grammar'[17] - but if we make a world where
> 'fake news' is the information source - then, it's not really people that
> will be responsible anymore? If someone is trained to hold false-belief's
> purposefully, via income generating commodification mechanisms - how it is
> their fault, if they say or do things that are factually horrific, whilst
> potentially reasonable from their status as an 'observer' of whatever
> information it is they've been fed (and what it is they've never been able
> to make known).
>
> Timo.
>
>
> [1]
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/15emiG_B0XKhJgv7dq9T0mNd9eGXcJTWPGsEuVHOaDGc/edit?usp=sharing
>
> [2] https://w3c-ccg.github.io/did-spec/
> [3] https://github.com/bourgeoa/tiddlywiki-node-solid-server
> [4] https://bourgeoa.solid.community/public/tiddlywiki/
> [5] https://www.w3.org/community/solid/wiki/Main_Page
> [6] http://manu.sporny.org/2016/browser-api-incubation-antipattern/
> [7] https://www.w3.org/blog/news/archives/5862
> [8] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rww/2016Feb/0015.html
> [9] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood
> [10]
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Guidelines_for_Consumer_Protection
>
> [11] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information-centric_networking
> [12] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content_centric_networking
> [13] https://irtf.org/icnrg
> [14] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aigR2UU4R20
> [15]
> https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLCbmz0VSZ_voTpRK9-o5RksERak4kOL40
> [16]
> https://www.technologyreview.com/s/613092/a-quantum-experiment-suggests-theres-no-such-thing-as-objective-reality/
>
> [17] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kr2K8mo-A5g&t=4898s
>
>
> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>