Re: Unlinkability. Re: Building Linked Data into the Core of the Web

On 2014-09-22 21:15, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> On 9/22/14 11:32 AM, Anders Rundgren wrote:
>> On 2014-09-22 13:16, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>>> On 9/22/14 2:31 AM, Anders Rundgren wrote:
>>>> I'm by no means an enemy to Linked Data, I just don't see what it
>>>> would do for *conventional* payments except for introducing privacy
>>>> and access control concerns.
>>>
>>> Please take time to digest:
>>>
>>> [1]
>>> http://bit.ly/enterprise-identity-management-and-attribute-based-access-controls
>>> [2]
>>> http://bit.ly/loosely-coupled-read-write-web-and-web-access-controls-using-webid
>>> .
>>>
>>> You cannot make a moderately usable system without an identification
>>> mechanism that isn't yet another data silo.
>>>
>>> *conventional* payments are an application of data driven
>>> identification, interaction, and management.
>>
>> My only ambition has been describing how you could "webify" an
>> existing payment system,
>> *without* changing data ownership, relationships, business-, trust-,
>> or privacy-models.
>
> You can't achieve that goal, in any non contradictory way, if you've
> somehow convinced yourself that Linked Open Data and Webify aren't
> inextricably linked.
>
> "*without* changing data ownership, relationships, business-, trust-, or
> privacy-models." is just another way of saying: structured data
> representation + entity relationship semantics, without
> data-silo-fication. That's exactly what RDF based Linked Open Data is
> fundamentally about, period [1].
>
>>
>> Since the main problem with identity information is not the
>> information itself but
>> how it will be used after being submitted, it seems like a safe(r) bet
>> minimizing
>> exposure of such data.
>
> Linked Open Data never means "uncontrolled or unconstrained access to
> data" [1].
>
>>    This is a corner-stone of my write-up.  Another example is
>> FIDO which (at least on paper...) is the opposite to Linked Data since
>> each site
>> is supposed to be an identity silo.  In practice FIDO doesn't work as
>> Google claims
>> but that's altogether different discussion :-)
>
> You can conditionally constrain access to data using data access policies.

Yes, but if there is a way getting away from that by for example doing
what my write-up does (encrypting the user's response and identity so that
it is only readable by the sole party that needs it), I think it is worth
considering.

Anyway, since my write-up is fairly complete, would it be possible to get
concrete input on how it could be improved by adding Linked Data or do
we always have to start from zero?

BTW, I think this is VERY important because I'm surely not the only one
out there who do not necessarily understand what the WebPayments CG
is saying.  Personally, I think it would be quite useful if somebody
did a simple write-up of how *they* would address credit-card payments
on the web because then we would have something to compare with.  If we
are lucky we may even find a way combining the old and the new :-)

If nothing helps we will surely go into the black:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0O1v_7T6p8U

Cheers
Anders

>
>
> [1]
> http://bit.ly/enterprise-identity-management-and-attribute-based-access-controls
> -- presentation that covers Linked Open Data and Attribute based Access
> Controls working in tandem.
>
>
> Kingsley
>>
>> Anders
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Your point is inherently contradictory.
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Received on Tuesday, 23 September 2014 05:13:12 UTC