Re: Credentials Community Group

If your saying the Credentials initiative has no merit - I have to disagree.

the demo that was created - i thought was good.  I was annoyed i couldn’t generate a WebID / WebID-TLS Cert in the demo - but it’s just one of the many bridges that could be built along the way.

The question remains - Have we considered the identity lifecycle sufficiently, and what could be done to improve the overall solutions - including, ensuring cooperative predicates that acknowledge the existence of other formats, for different purpose, providing interoperability between the various initiatives and/or fields.

A possible answer is no.  (I’m not sure that would be the most constructive one.)

Love your work - with very high esteem overall - yet sometimes your twitter posts have more code than content, doesn’t mean i don’t spend (sometimes lots of) time figuring out what it’s all about, etc.  

seperately; as part of my dev. cycle, I worked with people in their 70’s, 80’s and older - teaching them how to digitise heritage content, within a (group of) country historical societies, seeking to look at an array of problems around the digital divide, civic content, RDF based licensing for Civic / commercial use, production lifecycles, identity systems with history related stakeholder groups, etc.  Within that area, it would be good to have WebID’s associated to contributors - so when they post additional data about an image, such as “a persons”, or the manufacturer of an object depicted - We can figure out whether or not it’s real - and in-turn, send help verify interactions, etc.

Other aspects include that it is my belief, that seniors - given their various disabilities - can benefit enormously from tablet computing, and if their is troubled, isolated kids - well, they’ve got alot of time and it takes ages to scan archives of historical content ++ they generally know something about computers (perhaps not so much about community).

But tell me.  When these seniors need one sort of ID for shopping, but do not wish to be harassed due to info they’ve been made to share to do that transaction (not very tech. savvy at all…).  So many already, have some inbound call by someone who then asks for their banking details because theirs a problem - which they hand-over, over the phone - because that’s the way organisations do business nowadays, it’s cheaper.

So - whilst it’s high-up on my agenda to get stuck into that data-rights issue - in relation to the broader issues i perceive may be worth considering - i’m thinking, at least i’ve blown the trumpet and said something along the lines of - hey all - why don’t we have a good think about how we’re going about this whole identity area.  Perhaps we can define something that fits the needs of various industries, whilst still, as technologists - putting the people’s interests first, as part of the design criteria. 

Even with anders stuff.  I see no reason why, although being very different to other solutions, some sort of design requirement cannot be made so that his specific field of interest may be incorporated in some way that’s rational.  

Yet - it’s so not that easy.  I know that.  Else i’d simply DIY.

ATM - identity is institutionally fragmented - in a manner, where user-data is stored with the identity provider, or in relation to a commercial identity provider.  I envisage this will change, and that the best approach will likely be to have a market-based solution.  To do that, i envisage a full set of standards will be required and i see no reason why the HTTP aspects of it, shouldn’t be done via the W3C.
</rant>

timh.

On 2 Aug 2014, at 2:46 am, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote:

> On 7/31/14 3:43 AM, Anders Rundgren wrote:
>> I don't feel too optimistic about this effort. 
>> 
>> This seems like a repetition of WebID-TLS, zero buy-in from the browser-vendors. 
>> 
>> Without new stuff added to browsers I don't see how you can move the market. 
>> 
>> Years ago I suggested creating a "Cloud Token": 
>> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/icf-members/Csyd1NWcmog 
>> 
>> Unfortunately nobody liked the idea. When FIDO/Google did the same thing 
>> with U2F, *the entire industry* from Microsoft to ARM flocked around it. 
>> This is why browser-vendor buy-in remains the #1 problem. 
>> 
>> BTW, the fixation with Linked Data is contra-productive, there are a lot 
>> of use-cases that do not need or want to put credential data on the web. 
>> I.e. credential data should always be possible to supply "in-line"
> 
> Linked Data == Web-like (or Webby) Structured Data Representation. It enables data to flow across data silos, via HTTP URIs. It is based on:
> 
> 1. HTTP URIs
> 2. RDF language statements (which can be crafted using a variety of notations re., document content). 
> 
> What does RDF uniquely add to structured data representation?
> 
> 1. Use of IRIs
> 2. Semantics for Relationship Properties (Predicates, Relations etc..) that are both human and machine readable.
> 
> #1 means identifiers functioning like words, they do not implicitly resolve to what they denote.
> #2 means you can just make up a relation on-the-fly that's comprehensible to both humans and machines, if you simply describe the relation semantics [1].
> 
> What do HTTP URIs add to RDF? 
> 
> 1. Use of HTTP URIs for denotation that resolves to connotation
> 2. RDF document become vehicles of connotation (sense) based on the Name/Address indirection that HTTP URIs enable .
> 
> #2 means Identifiers functioning like natural language terms i.e., they implicitly resolve to what they denote.
> 
> Linked Data isn't the issue here. The issue is understanding how to use AWWW to build solutions that work within the existing infrastructure provided by the Web. Just as the Web was constructed to leverage the infrastructure provided by the Internet.
> 
> You don't need Browser buy-in for anything since Web Browsers are simply client applications that leverage AWWW infrastructure. 
> 
> The notion of applications and services change, due to the dexterous nature of AWWW, therein lies the real problem. We have infrastructure that's much smarter (by way of core design) than most presume, initially !!
> 
> To conclude, you can't build an W3C endorsed spec that turns AWWW on its head. That will fail during the review process, and if my some bizarre miracle it doesn't, it will implode, predictably, due to all of its points of data-silo-fication.
> 
> [1] http://linkeddata.uriburner.com/c/9DA62JIF -- about "H/T" a human and machine comprehensible relation I made on-the-fly, using RDF in Twitter, Facebook posts etc.. 
> -- 
> Regards,
> 
> Kingsley Idehen	      
> Founder & CEO 
> OpenLink Software     
> Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
> Personal Weblog 1: http://kidehen.blogspot.com
> Personal Weblog 2: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
> Twitter Profile: https://twitter.com/kidehen
> Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about
> LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
> Personal WebID: http://kingsley.idehen.net/dataspace/person/kidehen#this