Where communities thrive


  • Join over 1.5M+ people
  • Join over 100K+ communities
  • Free without limits
  • Create your own community
People
Activity
  • Aug 11 2021 20:52
    @RubenVerborgh banned @mikeadams1
  • Jan 04 2021 20:23
    @RubenVerborgh banned @WebCivics_twitter
  • Jan 04 2021 20:18
    @RubenVerborgh banned @SailingDigital_twitter
  • May 27 2019 06:08
    User @Mitzi-Laszlo unbanned @in1t3r
  • May 23 2019 06:49
    @Mitzi-Laszlo banned @in1t3r
  • May 16 2019 09:49
    @Mitzi-Laszlo banned @mediaprophet
  • Feb 01 2019 22:04
    User @melvincarvalho unbanned @namedgraph_twitter
  • Feb 01 2019 21:49
    @melvincarvalho banned @namedgraph_twitter
Mauricio Melo
@mauriciomelo
Couldn't see your previous messages, thanks @dmitrizagidulin I'll definitely check did-io.
Mauricio Melo
@mauriciomelo
@theWebalyst SAFE is on the radar, no blockchain is awesome in this scenario.
DTP looks fantastic, it's awesome they're encouraging using standards like schema.org
Mark Hughes (happybeing/theWebalyst)
@happybeing
Yes, I'm finding it a bit hard to believe, but maybe it's pressure off GDPR.
Brad Jones
@bradjonesca
@mauriciomelo I haven't been able to locate any mention of schema.org and/or json-ld in the information provided by the DTP through an initial scan of the materials ... could you let me know where to look? Thanks in advance
Twain
@twainus_gitlab
@mediaprophet - Knowledge is not truth nor wisdom. All of Big Tech have extensive semantic knowledge graphs and look where they are: https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/21/alphabets-eric-schmidt-why-google-can-have-trouble-ranking-truth.html
Mauricio Melo
@mauriciomelo
@bradjonesca it's mentioned very briefly on the dtp-overview.pdf. "1. (If needed) Participating provider implements a new Data Model if an existing Data Model
isn’t sufficient. They are encouraged to use existing standards or norms (e.g. schema.org)
where possible." https://datatransferproject.dev/dtp-overview.pdf
Ghost
@ghost~57bc59d440f3a6eec060e93b

@twainus_gitlab https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIKW_pyramid —> i owned wisdom.ai, which was intended to be a RWW/Solid App - that helped people curate their own Dynamic AI agents —> but couldn’t afford to renew the domain, indeed its been really financially hard being focused on this work for so long… anyhow. domain is now for sale: http://uniregistry.com/market/domain/wisdom.ai —> only $250k USD.

a list of schema tools is: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/19IEgvdvwl_EOGhmIFinVQu4OerRojeje8PaZWGvoO4Q/edit#gid=0

knowledge has a few meanings https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/knowledge but i don’t think any of it relates to ‘fantasy’… https://www.nature.com/articles/438743a helps to describe "I suggest that in a simi- lar way, the distinction between reality and our knowledge of reality, between reality and information, cannot be made. There is no way to refer to reality without using the information we have about it.” as a meaningful concept that forms what i think in the similar field - is a distortion pattern, that degrades actual knowledge - to fantasy.. therein, it’s kinda important the web is self-archiving. https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://dig.csail.mit.edu/ doesn’t seem to me, to be the right way of going about it…

I think most of it stemmed from: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1945/07/as-we-may-think/303881/ " He urges that men of science should then turn to the massive task of making more accessible our bewildering store of knowledge. For years inventions have extended man's physical powers rather than the powers of his mind. Trip hammers that multiply the fists, microscopes that sharpen the eye, and engines of destruction and detection are new results, but not the end results, of modern science. Now, says Dr. Bush, instruments are at hand which, if properly developed, will give man access to and command over the inherited knowledge of the ages.”

arguably the wealth distribution of the current, global knowledge economy, is worse than the fiet economy. some like google & facebook, have the knowledge of the world https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/edit?mid=1bHmB8_f7ASRHm97TwhZmmEQnTKU

Whilst its been actively involved in feeding lies to people that we don’t know any more, what is true. our information management systems are dynamic.

Ghost
@ghost~57bc59d440f3a6eec060e93b
Melvin Carvalho
@melvincarvalho

I was thinking a bit more about the relationship between block chain and solid. And technically solid is very close to block chain. The concept of a block chain, which was originally called a time chain is an ordered set of files with headers and time stamps (so that files are ordered). That's exactly what an LDPC is, which is part of solid. In other words it's just like a folder with time stamps. The reason that time chain was renamed to block chain is that the folders became globally replicated, and it's really difficult to ensure that all the clocks are in sync, so time does not preserve order, but rather, a link to the previous file. Solid does not yet have a replication protocol, which is typical of block chains to allow no central authority, but that can be added. Public Block chains also tend to be immutable which is a property of the ACL, already built into solid.

So in summary, solid LDPCs are block chains in a technical sense; if you add a replication app, they will match what people traditionally think of block chain.

Ghost
@ghost~57bc59d440f3a6eec060e93b

i can’t find the Web-DHT library, whilst noting, the objective outlined in HTTPA http://news.mit.edu/2014/whos-using-your-data-httpa-0613 (which from memory used bambooDHT? can’t remember). might help.

Imho - i’ve been thinking about social-encryption, and social-decentralisation. rules about how and what others can store of your data, kinda like a socially-augmented CDN.

noting moreover; commons suit blockchains very well imho. ie: putting a mix of wikipedia, wikidata and computer vision info (alongside phonetics) together on a replicable block-chain, where the keys support accountability; is a very different use-case for some of the ‘credentials’ works; than human identity, which i’m quite fixed on the idea of entitling an inforg… but fine to agree to disagree, until i can demo it effectively.
or even after ;)
it looks like DTP is using vcard
I think it will be JSON-LD with schema.org
Ghost
@ghost~57bc59d440f3a6eec060e93b
+1
noting definitions might not be the best. ie: physician is a place rather than a profession https://schema.org/Physician
Ghost
@ghost~57bc59d440f3a6eec060e93b
that should be consistent with solid
Melvin Carvalho
@melvincarvalho
@bradjonesca re schema.org see : google/data-transfer-project#306
Mark Hughes (happybeing/theWebalyst)
@happybeing
Via the DTP github issue just referenced, Microsoft have posted pointing to their recent work on decentralised identity: https://cloudblogs.microsoft.com/enterprisemobility/2018/02/12/decentralized-digital-identities-and-blockchain-the-future-as-we-see-it/
This points to the DID W3C Spec: https://w3c-ccg.github.io/did-spec/
That spec doesn't mention WedId
Is there a relationship between DID and WebID? At first glance they seem redundant /equivalents, though DID seems maybe to use URI differently (spec seems confiding in fragments) and to use JSON as its base rather than RDF, although they place JSON-LD on top of it.
Melvin Carvalho
@melvincarvalho
@theWebalyst Yes. It's a pity. At one point Manu who is an author of the DID spec, was really behind WebID, was writing specs, creating implentations etc., with a view to make it a widely adopted standard. As sometimes happens, he was made to feel unwelcome, by a person in the group. So he, and his company, went away and created DID and JSON-LD in the intervening years. It's a missed opportunity.
That was about 8 years ago. So, as you can see, these things take time to bring to maturity. Facebook implemented WebID about 5 years ago, and with microsoft interested in DID it might gain some traction. Given both schemes use URIs solid should be able to take advantage of both. The only issue I can see is that some DID schemes require you to put an API in your top level domain, which can be a high bar. A good approach, which I've advocated and had positive feedback is to allow data discovery in a /.well-known/ location which would allow DID and WebID to interoperate nicely.
So while Manu focuses on DID now, he still likes WebID and wants to interoperate. He's just not put all his resources behind it, for social reasons.
Melvin Carvalho
@melvincarvalho
On a technical level WebID is resolved by following an HTTP link. DID is resolved in a slightly more centralized way, but refering to a spec and then following the instructions there, but are content addressable so do not require a normative location. If some of the DIDs have a path that is http oriented, it will be easy for a solid user to set one up, and even replicate it on other pods for redundancy and discovery. The same can actually be achieved with the ni: (named instance) URI scheme which allows content addressable URIs and locations. DIDs go a bit further with defining some PKI requirements etc.
the challenge for the did: uri scheme is to popularize it, http is decades ahead on that front, so you have a technical aspect and an advocacy aspect
tl;dr -- yes, did and webid should work together well, and has many of the same people involved in both communities
Melvin Carvalho
@melvincarvalho
we could actually make a did:solid:<hash> system
when I first started getting interested in identity a major system was called microsoft passport, and the cost to participate was $50,000 -- I actually started saving, as it wasnt clear at that time anything could challenge it -- but today I run my own web identity on my own home page at near zero cost!
Melvin Carvalho
@melvincarvalho

so how might a did:solid scheme work?

  • You take a subset of important fields in your idenitty, including public key
  • You canonicalize that data (quads)
  • You hash that data
  • With the hash you create a content addressable URI ie did:solid:hash
  • You digitally sign the data
  • You store that hash on many pods at /.well-known/did/solid/hash
  • You link to that hash from your WebID

Now your WebID, and important info, can be reconstructed even if your server goes down.

You could also pin it on ipfs etc.
Mauricio Melo
@mauriciomelo
This message was deleted
Dmitri Zagidulin
@dmitrizagidulin
@melvincarvalho I proposed a did:solid scheme to Manu recently.
Melvin Carvalho
@melvincarvalho
@dmitrizagidulin pointer?
Dmitri Zagidulin
@dmitrizagidulin
he mentioned that there's no point, since you can use http: URLs interchangeably with DIDs
this was an in-person convo.
Melvin Carvalho
@melvincarvalho
Im possibly missing some context, but the two schemes have different properties. However, yes, totally they can be linked together, one way, or two way.
Dmitri Zagidulin
@dmitrizagidulin
so, specifically, anywhere in the downstream specs (like Verifiable Credentials, LD Signatures, Object Capabilities, etc), anywhere you can use a DID, you can use an http: url (that returns a properly formatted DID Doc)
Melvin Carvalho
@melvincarvalho
sure, that's a property of JSON-LD but http uri's are not necessarily content addressable, and did uris are, with a did : solid registration we could marry the two together, in a way that is not done elsewhere -- was that along the lines of your proposal?
did : v1 (veres one) looks quite difficult to implement in our servers, we could simplify that
Dmitri Zagidulin
@dmitrizagidulin
DID URIs are not necessarily content addressable. some methods implement them that way
but there's nothing in the spec regarding that.
Melvin Carvalho
@melvincarvalho
ah that's interesting