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

peter williams home_pw at msn.com
Tue Mar 22 20:32:32 CET 2011


So yes, webid is the forcing function for the semantic web.

I cannot get excited about the high-end semantic web (in social federated
spaces etc). But that doesn't mean you cannot. I just want the 10 year old
foaf card to work. Its the old directory record, revisited, and made MUCH
more viable. Everything is in the right plane looking forward (not backwards
to X.500, and old wars long decided)

But then, I was trained that anything worth productizing for the mass market
was an experiment in a university 17 years ago. If there is not that time
gap, either the university researcher was not doing a good job (by being 17
years ahead of the curve), or you are "too early" in adopting.



-----Original Message-----
From: foaf-protocols-bounces at lists.foaf-project.org
[mailto:foaf-protocols-bounces at lists.foaf-project.org] On Behalf Of Kingsley
Idehen
Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2011 12:02 PM
To: Henry Story
Cc: foaf-protocols at lists.foaf-project.org
Subject: Re: [foaf-protocols] webid group said... something interesting

On 3/22/11 1:41 PM, Henry Story wrote:
> 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.

Sure! That's where I like to live. But, I also believe we can fix broken
marketing comms narratives. Nothings a "silver bullet" per se., the puzzle
in always comprised of many pieces :-)

> 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.

Yes, and WebID is coming....
> 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

We also have faceback.me :-)

Kingsley
> 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/
>
>


-- 

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



More information about the foaf-protocols mailing list