I would be weary of making PDS dependent on any technology and notably on any specific syntax implementations.A lot depends on :- the ecosystem itself- the composition and maturity of its stakeholders- the nature of the winwin4all factor.As a chairmen of two xml standards WG, I know how difficult it is to get organizations to adopt any top-down standard.Without sufficient uptake by ALL stakeholders PDS are dead in the water.We especially need to cater for quick and easy organizational uptake.Talk to businesses and see if they are willing to get/put data in/out of their systems.There will also be different business models for different 'data & application domains', which might favor different technology choices.So what's left are :- syntax choices that we make mappable- domain specific semantics of what constitutes "personal data fit for meaningful sharing"I think the latter is the most important.Where open linked data 'forgot' to add semantic interoperability, we have the opportunity to not make the same mistake.I therefore would plea to work towards a framework that focuses foremost on semantics (of which RDF is again just one of the possible formats) and on making different syntax choices mappable.L.On 06 Nov 2011, at 07:31, William Heath wrote:Well, I'm not pushing for it. But if you think there's a strong case to be made and wish to make it then now owuld be a good time, and it would seem to me the right thing to do. I think the "half-open door" is that at such an early stage Shadbolt et al would be quite pleased that serious thinkers have noted the development and want to add serious constructive thoughts. Later it might all just be noisier.WOn 6 November 2011 06:12, Drummond Reed < " target="_blank"> > wrote:
Markus is right about PDS interop being "easier said than done" -- as someone who's been on the XDI Technical Committee for five years now, he knows whereof he speaks.
But if the effort is still far from the technical level, as Iain suggests, then no need pushing that yet.
My key concern is this: if the parties involved with working out the first truly interoperable solutions start at the level of .CSV files -- or even XML files -- it will be a little like trying to launch a rocket with a slingshot (CSV) or a large catapult (XML). The chances of it getting into orbit are nil.
RDF could give you a fighting chance (I know at least Paul Trevithick would say so). But I'd be happy to go into detail about why XDI, and in particular XDI link contracts, is the only protocol I'm aware of designed to get the full personal data ecosystem payload into full VRM orbit (to really stretch a metaphor).
William et al, if you think it's helpful to summarize that in a one- or two-pager for Nigel Shadbolt and his committee, let me know, the XDI TC could put something together.
=Drummond
On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 9:40 AM, Markus Sabadello < " target="_blank"> > wrote:
The PDS interoperability question is of course easier said than done, as right now most companies and efforts in the space (understandably) have higher priorities.In the PDEC we are now beginning to work on a documentation effort, to try get an overview of how the different projects work with personal data on the technical level.Right now this is only focuses on documentation, but interoperability seems to be the logical next step.MarkusOn Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 2:17 PM, William Heath < " target="_blank"> > wrote:...and to answer your last question I think it's- within national policy to keep door open to user-held control over 3rd-party proven attributes (ie not just have org-centric ID providers)- get personal data services going- ensure PDS quickly become interoperableWilliamOn 4 November 2011 12:08, Luk Vervenne < " target="_blank"> > wrote:
First of all, mucho kudos to Mydex & Ctrl-Shift for the good work!
That being said, allow me a critical reflection.
1. UK Cabinet Office expects too much from 'just' identity/identification providers, all while the sustainable business models lay with attribute providers.
(by the way we’re a group of trust experts, also advising UK CO in the tech and interoperability WG)
2. The reason being that the Cabinet Office still has not got an good picture of what an real "end2end trust assured (personal data) ecosystem" is.
It should include identification, identity management, authentication, pseudonymisation, authorization, privacy & security by design, policy management, …
3. However, that's just the tech stuff. We foremost need user-driven business models that - with the above as a pre-condition - ‘really’ empower users.
In that light one can reflect on the organizations that now promise to give your data back : how did they got it in the first place?
Was the data obtained in an eligible, consented way.
Was there data minimization used in obtaining it?
One also needs to tackle that problem, and that's going to be a much tougher one
Not in the least since it requires organizations to alter their existing business processes, instead of just adding one new 'give data back' process;
Of course we can’t have everything at once. I will be a continued battle.
But that should not constrain our finality/end goals.
The last thing we need is being happy with the bone organizations throw us, or a government's political claim that "they now have solved the problem".
So I’m all for keeping the pressure up in aiming for the next step.
Therefore I think it is paradigm for this group and for the end-user to become a genuine stakeholder in his own processes to agree on what that next step needs to be.
Cheers,
Luk
Van: Iain Henderson [mailto: " target="_blank"> ]
Verzonden: vrijdag 4 november 2011 5:03
Aan: " target="_blank">
CC: Drummond Reed; ProjectVRM list
Onderwerp: Re: [projectvrm] UK gov launches "midata" data giveback program
A PDEC one pager is probably a good start. But it should cover more than just technical inter-operability, which right now is working at the base level of 'get the same data out of each company in the same sector, and output in common formats.
I'll have a chat with Liz about that.
Iain
On 4 Nov 2011, at 07:28, William Heath < " target="_blank"> > wrote:
Possible start could be one-pager for the Interoperability Board. David from Mydex or Liz from Ctrl-Shift could make sure it gets through to Nigel Shadbolt. He would be the key expert/skeptic.
William
On 4 November 2011 06:55, Drummond Reed < " target="_blank"> > wrote:
William, brilliant, with an interoperability board, at least there's a prayer of...interoperability!
Sounds like us XDI-heads should arrange a way to reach out to them at some point. Let me know your ideas about that.
Best,
=Drummond
On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 12:22 PM, William Heath < " target="_blank"> > wrote:
Alan and my posts on this crossed (apols - been exciting day).
To answer your qu: point on this is Nigel Shadbolt. There's an
interoperabiity board.
William
On 3 November 2011 19:11, Drummond Reed < " target="_blank"> > wrote:
> William, thanks for posting. For us VRM geeks, this is super exciting.
>
> I saw this quote:
>
>> The government is promising "protocols" to handle any privacy or consumer
>> protection issues - but also stressing that this is a private sector
>> initiative and it will not be hamstrung by rules and regulations.
>
> As a deep XDI guy, I'm wondering if the government actually knows what those
> protocols are/need to be. For the midata effort, who is point on figuring
> that out?
>
> Best,
>
> =Drummond
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 11:45 AM, William Heath < " target="_blank"> > wrote:
>>
>> This is pretty cool - the UK forerunner to the US "Smart Disclosure"
>> initiative. Essential VRM building block I reckon. William
>>
>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-15580059
>>
>> It could deliver huge growth potential to the British economy while
>> transforming the relationship between consumers and corporations.
>>
>> Nothing trivial, then, about the claims being made by the government
>> about its midata project.
>>
>> The plan is to release all sorts of data held by private businesses
>> back to consumers - but the challenge is going to be explaining to the
>> public just why this is so exciting.
>>
>> "It can sound a bit geeky," admitted Professor Nigel Shadbolt, the man
>> trying to push through the government's open data agenda. "But it's
>> about getting the information that companies hold about me and you
>> back to you in a form you can use."
>>
>> The plan is that all sorts of companies will make their data
>> available, and then other firms will help consumers to manage it and
>> build useful applications and services on the back of it.....
>
>
--
--
--
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.19.