[foaf-protocols] WebID talk at W3C

Seth Russell russell.seth at gmail.com
Sun Aug 22 19:57:24 CEST 2010


It sound like you are poised to hit the perfect note that will convince the
W3C to take up the project.   I hope you also have some time to address the
political elephant that will be in the room.   As you know providing
identity is a lucrative plum that all of the major players, Microsoft,
Google, Facebook, twitter, etc want to pluck.  They all have been
competeting for that plumb and should anything really start working, the
outfit which provides it will be sitting pretty.  So i see this as an
opportunity which the W3C has at this moment in history to take this plumb
and define it so that it is designed for the benefit of we the people rather
than a profit center for corporate competition.   Should that happen we will
all benefit, none the less the giant corporations ... the same argument
applied to the birth of the Internet itself.  Does the W3C have the courage
to push that agenda or not?   So,  do you think that is a point that needs
making?

Seth Russell
Podcasting: tagtalking.net
Facebook ing: facebook.com/russell.seth
Twitter ing: twitter.com/SethRussell
Blogging: fastblogit.com/seth/
Catalog selling: www.speaktomecatalog.com
Google profile: google.com/profiles/russell.seth


On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 2:12 AM, Henry Story <henry.story at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> On 22 Aug 2010, at 09:12, Henry Story wrote:
>
> > As it happens I just realised that I will be travelling at the time of
> the meeting myself on Tuesday. You yourself told me won't be able to make it
> either. So I think we should push this meeting back a week or two perhaps.
>
> It may also be good to move the teleconf to Wednesday where we could
> discuss what will be presented at the W3C meeting. At the very least I
> should talk this over together with you Manu more carefully.
>
>  I have given many talks on WebID over the past two years, to many
> different audiences from the academic to the hacker world, and I have been
> thinking very carefully of how to present the message in a way that is both
> short, to the point and convincing. This is not an easy task.
>
>  It can be very difficult to structure such a talk in a way that both
> captures the originality and simplicity of WebID. Reduce WebID too much (say
> to a login button) and anything interesting that it may have will vanish.
> Make WebID too big: the solution to the Social Web, and you are closer to
> what it is about, but you may run out of time. Keep technical and people
> will get lost in the sea of competing protocols, but move too philosophical
> and they won't see how what you say relates to any practical question at
> all. WebId is a solution that is interesting because of its potential to
> answer a question few people have voiced - at least until very recently: the
> creation of the global decentralised social web. So one has to at the very
> least paint that picture in a few brush strokes.
>
>  Then there are of course the technical issues. Here we are confronted with
> a very odd space of mostly coherent browser implementations and browser
> flaws, with possible temporary workarounds to get things going. A bit like
> Ajax allowed people to work around browser incompatibilities, so in the
> WebID space there are a number of ways of working around limitations -
> though we have not fully solved the puzzle yet.
>
>  Finally WebID is not and should not be limited to web browsers - as they
> are now. When I embarked on the project, it was because I was thinking of
> building my own client - a semantic address book, which was to be to foaf
> what TweetDeck is to twitter - where it would have been completely feasible
> to work around any issues: though there are very good reasons there to have
> a protocol that is simple too. It was quite a surprise to me that we could
> get so far with Web Browsers at all.
>
>   Finally we are trying to solve issues that because they overlap with
> issues others are trying to solve - and have been trying to solve for so
> long - may easily lead people to think the issues we are trying to solve are
> identical to others they tried to solve unsuccessfully, or have solved
> already. Working one's way with people trough this space that has been
> explored so much and so often is very much a philosophical task.
>
> There is something to this in what Wittgenstein wrote in the Philosophical
> Investigations:
>
> "The aspects of things that are most important for us are hidden because of
> their simplicity and familiarity. (One is unable to notice something—because
> it is always before one’s eyes.)"
>
>  And bringing out the familiar is even more difficult than bringing out the
> new, because the tendency people will have to think that they already
> understand what you are trying to show them :-)
>
>  So we need to make sure that the message presented at the W3C does justice
> to what WebID is about, in the very short time allotted there to us. How
> much time is it in fact?
>
>   Henry
>
> _______________________________________________
> foaf-protocols mailing list
> foaf-protocols at lists.foaf-project.org
> http://lists.foaf-project.org/mailman/listinfo/foaf-protocols
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.foaf-project.org/pipermail/foaf-protocols/attachments/20100822/b626ee2b/attachment.htm 


More information about the foaf-protocols mailing list