[foaf-protocols] webid group said... something interesting

Henry Story henry.story at bblfish.net
Tue Mar 22 18:41:55 CET 2011


I would not waste my time trying to explain things to people. Especially people who have an interest in not understanding. That is a key lesson from the field of evangelism, and was one of the points made by Anil Dash at his keynote at GNote.[1]

The only thing is to build excellent tools, deploy them in awsome products, and just overpower the non believers with our speed of execution and flexibility and the sheer force of our ideas. Let us, like the ancient greeks, overthrow the hierarchically structured organisation by pooling our forces, by placing as much responsibility in the lowest node as it can take. Let us allow everyone to give the best of themselves.

I am working on Clerezza. In the next week I'll have something one more node to allow people to make friends. http://clerezza.org/spike 

What are you working on?

  Henry


[1] Global Network of Technology Evangelists
    http://blogs.sun.com/bblfish/entry/an_involuntary_evangelist



On 22 Mar 2011, at 18:27, Kingsley Idehen wrote:

> On 3/22/11 12:40 PM, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
>> On 22 March 2011 17:34, peter williams<home_pw at msn.com>  wrote:
>>> Take away from the webid group call.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> It’s pointless talking about the letters rdf in a browser group (opera
>>> excepted), as folks are still scarred by wars over a decade ago.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> RDFa is “just about” a discussable topic – because its rendered like HTML
>>> and works with today’s browsers. It doesn’t set the pulse racing, and eyes
>>> rolling.
>> I do like RDF but for some reason the brand isnt as powerful as some
>> others, such as the Web itself.
> 
> Because its the wrong thing to talk about.
> 
> Why not talk about the underlying Concept of Linked Data Structures at 
> InterWeb scale driven by a Conceptual Schema. Then should the "what is a 
> conceptual schema?" question arise explain how its based on Logic i.e. 
> first-order logic. Then when they question that, explain to them that 
> "God created Logic" :-)
> 
>>  I tend to use the term html5 to talk
>> about the data layer of the web, as people seem to have more interest
>> in that branding.  Under the hood it's all the same thing, though.
> 
> The Web is evolving from an Information Space  where Linked Data 
> Containers Names and Addresses are indistinguishable (URI/URL can be 
> used interchangeably without confusion) to a Data Space where each 
> Object has a URI based ID (Name Ref) that resolves to the URL/Address or 
> its Representation. In addition, Representation is Negotiable, so RDF 
> format fixation is inherently contradictory.
> 
> If we speak clearly in a manner that reestablishes the fact that the WWW 
> is part of an computer technology innovation continuum we'll hit less 
> friction. If we  gobbledygook via "RDF or nothing" narratives then 
> confusion will reign, inertia will rise, and deservedly so IMHO.
> 
> Nothing under the sun made by man is truly new, bar context. Context 
> switching is how we make and extend continuums. Let's build bridges to 
> other realms, make connections with these realms by connecting 
> terminology i.e., we should learn the vocabulary of others rather than 
> imposing ours for sake of convenience.
> 
> Kingsley
>>> 
>>> 
>>> W3C is no longer formally agnostic about certs and ssl (while actually being
>>> quietly subversive); it has taken a position in the mainstream. It’s still
>>> looking for its mission in that mainstream. Webid and others have indicated
>>> there is now a webby position to be had – distinct from the usual IETF, PKI,
>>> identity management groups.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Techniques like webid can offend certain camps (e.g. OCSP) as they invade
>>> the space (turf wars) by unsettling that which certain camps thought settled
>>> (only CAs can issue validation statements about certs).
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Webid does have one message that resonates with W3C culture – its focus on
>>> individuals (and self-assertions, UCI etc) – a space vacated by the openid
>>> folks once they went  corporate (having failed to make the right pitch to
>>> individuals, given XRD/XRI). W3C can thus speak for the little guys in some
>>> sense, globally, attempting to find a balance between individuals and
>>> corporate interests. At least individuals have a space to have a say (unlike
>>> most corporate security spaces)
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> W3C has long history in privacy and signatures (e.g. p3p) which shows a
>>> “policy” acumen. This has not translated however into comprehensive family
>>> of related standards, that bridge the security policy and global security
>>> practices where W3C has shown strong capabilities.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> W3C recognizes that it doesn’t need to do what IETF or Kantara does, or have
>>> formal positions on the US national id program – as it must retain a non-US
>>> centric position – being a global movement. This is going to be hard to
>>> execute (since 95% of the initiatives are US…led, having comprehensive
>>> funding and the dominant market).
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> foaf-protocols mailing list
>>> foaf-protocols at lists.foaf-project.org
>>> http://lists.foaf-project.org/mailman/listinfo/foaf-protocols
>>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> foaf-protocols mailing list
>> foaf-protocols at lists.foaf-project.org
>> http://lists.foaf-project.org/mailman/listinfo/foaf-protocols
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Kingsley Idehen	
> President&  CEO
> OpenLink Software
> Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
> Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
> Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> foaf-protocols mailing list
> foaf-protocols at lists.foaf-project.org
> http://lists.foaf-project.org/mailman/listinfo/foaf-protocols

Social Web Architect
http://bblfish.net/



More information about the foaf-protocols mailing list