Re: The Default

Melvin,

I just grabbed it and turned it.into a google.doc to support collaborative
work.

Document author is mitzi

On Thu., 21 Mar. 2019, 8:27 pm Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com
wrote:

>
>
> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>