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

Henry Story henry.story at bblfish.net
Tue Mar 22 20:49:04 CET 2011


On 22 Mar 2011, at 20:32, peter williams wrote:

> 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.

yes, agree on that one.

A few reminders:

  - In 1994 I was doing some Visual Basic Programming in London for a traffic simulation of Southampton
an a 40Mhz Intel cpu. The laptops came with a mouse, but the prof was really worried that using 
the mouse was too difficult for the interviewers using it around town. I kept having to explain that it was nearly as difficult to switch off the mouse as it was to have it working in VB on windows 3.1 . Of course it was invented in 1967 or so, and started being used in 1984 with the mac.

 - The Xerox parc machines were completely built on OO programming. When Java came out in 1995 people were extremlely worried that 1. it would be slow (it was at the beginning, but now it can be faster than c ). that develppers would not understand it. Now Java is old hat, and devs develop in Functional/OO languages like Scala.
 
  Anyway I wrote more of those out  here
  http://bblfish.net/blog/page1.html#14

  In the end a problem occurs that can't be solved any other way, and everybody forgets they are stupid, and spends a huge amount of time learning it. Be careful because when they do, any advantage you thought you had will be swept away by the tsunami if you are not on your plank riding the wave.

	Henry

> 
> 
> 
> -----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
> 

Social Web Architect
http://bblfish.net/



More information about the foaf-protocols mailing list