Re: Credentials Community Group

On 6 Aug 2014, at 7:18 pm, Kingsley Idehen <> wrote:

> Data rights are a consequence of you controlling your data. Privacy is about self-calibration of vulnerability, in both cases, its all about the data. If you control your data, you control the levers of vulnerability. 

The point of a data-rights ontology / methodology (like rel:cc) would be to define the differences between one provider, and another.  Facebook can easily suggest they put you in control of your data.  How do you expect the end-users of your software, or a personally hosted styled service - for storing data - to know the difference between a silo, somewhere in the world vs. the possible alternatives that RDF technologies can offer.

I had a young lady, highly qualified in the area of ‘entrepreneurship and innovation’ hassle me for bloody ages to define “what i’m doing” - in relation to “semantic web” stuff.  

so, the draft output looked like this...

The Semantic Web Centralises Languages, from any database on the Internet

and what it does

is it applies it to W3C Standards

Which is how information translates to all versions of a web browser

Now, acting in a way as a scientist - passionate about the field - having just watched the "The Internet's Own Boy: The Story of Aaron Swartz (CC available: en,es,fr,tr,cn)“ (link: almost all of the content about decentralised application infrastructure - is most often designed for ‘geek’ or is more than 15 minutes long - most often, more than an hour.

As we (successfully) move forward, we’ll have ‘copycats’ who feel they’ve broken the secret ‘marketing code’, doing the same thing - just in a technically inferior way.  The videos will look awesome, they might have more money - but the product, whilst likely being really easy to use - may have inferior definitions of ‘data rights’ - simply because for that company - it is profitable.

Self-calibration of vulnerability - is only part of the cycle, especially in circumstances when you don’t have access to that data and/or providing data is mandated by some party capable of enforcement / procurement (without necessarily, educated voluntary agreement / furnishing such data, upon whatever mandated terms, etc.) 

I do not believe any single entity can ‘control your data’. If you went about and made it really difficult to access (reducing accessibility) then, it’s perhaps more vulnerable for everyone - than having it located in a password protected area on an array of different locations, or even web locations. 

The reason why the concepts surrounding HTTPA - (HTTP + Accountability) - have such enormous merit in my opinion, is the recognition that to have any system of trust, the predicate is a system of accountability (and a comprehensive understanding of how that matrix of accountability can in-turn be ‘hacked’) 

without these things - a system of ‘trust’ without accountability? is naive, complicit variability - a territory we as technologists - i believe - have a form of duty of care, around resourcing alternatives rather than selling new products to those, through they’re lay subject matter expertise, continue to be exploited unreasonably.

(furthermore, the way in which such behaviours encroach upon the rest of us, is also likely evident sociologically. )

Thereto also - Creative Commons (for content) has no real ability to enforce rights as a product or service.  It does, however, provide the ability to declare it - and provide information, which can be put under scrutiny.  If you put your own creative-commons license on someone else’s content product - well;.. the same ‘rules' can apply to data.

the points i considered around what this type of ontology (mechanism for ‘control’) might include declarations purporting requests of data-rights concepts such as,


I haven’t got much feedback on these principle areas as yet. whether i’ve missed anything at that top-level…

Feedback would be Appreciated.

data is the basis for digital economy, democracy, etc.  Just because we put it into magnetic-electrical devices, rather than chipping stuff into stones or inking papyrus - doesn’t mean necessarily, we’re any more sophisticated as a people.


Received on Wednesday, 6 August 2014 11:28:31 UTC