July 3 2007 Meeting notes: Difference between revisions
Joe.andrieu (talk | contribs) (→Notes) |
Joe.andrieu (talk | contribs) (→Notes) |
||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
==Notes== | ==Notes== | ||
===Oxford=== | ===Oxford=== | ||
| Line 33: | Line 29: | ||
Perhaps a few more hand-picked folks. Doc likes that this is growing organically rather than promotionally. We'd rather have it grow that way rather than getting a bunch of people showing up and then having to weed out those that aren't really interested. | Perhaps a few more hand-picked folks. Doc likes that this is growing organically rather than promotionally. We'd rather have it grow that way rather than getting a bunch of people showing up and then having to weed out those that aren't really interested. | ||
===VRM & APML=== | |||
The question that came up is wouldn't XDI/XRI be a good technology for sharing APML data. That is particularly relevant because there are folks associated with Higgins who are very interested in doing that. That form of attention data is about as a high a value as Doc's 'intention' work. Assuming we can correlate that attention to intention, that's pretty much near gold. So if there is a very low friction way for a customer to share that data in a high trust framework, we have a fairly strong benevolent virus. | |||
The key thing is the category of a high-trust relationship. We are talking about a breed of relationships that happen in those conditions. However, we should be careful about handling marketing in this mix... this isn't about enabling the vendor to market more, it is about empowering the user. So we need to be careful about issues of user control and privacy. | |||
Chris Skaad of Particle, the orginator of APML has been chatting with Nick. A lot of these concerns have been raised and there is an interest in addressing them. He does understand the user-side contract conditions. | |||
John Clippinger of Berkman would say we don't have a lot of what we need to construct the user-side contracts. In the absence of a well-understood set of codified rights and privileges on the customer side, the user-side contract would be understood in the vendor's context. | |||
This is one of the areas where the conversation with Particle has explored, so that the conditions of release are embedded in the APML. So that rights and permissions are associated and as important architecturally as the attention data itself. The challenge is to make it powerful and not proscriptive, so it can accomodate a full spectrum of models. | |||
Doc can't imagine any conditions that would lead me to disclose my attention data to any vendors. I don't have any relationships that this makes sense for. | |||
One question is to what extent do we want to make that a VRM thing? This can only work in the context of a developed relationship. This presupposes marriage in the absence of courtship. | |||
The issue is that we don't have a clear use case for the user. | |||
If you are able to present credentials that could give you access to media, that is useful. | |||
Perhaps that's not APML, but is a non-media specific media licensing mechanism, so we can take the songs from our iPod to our iPhone to our PC to our work machine. Good VRM stuff. | |||
Another potential use case: individuals trading data, selling information about yourself to make some money. This could definitely use APML. | |||
Yet, we don't want to hand vendors the keys to the car they are going to run over us with. | |||
One issues with "Attention" as a verb and a noun, is that one of the original players in the attention realm was surreptitiously reselling data to mortgage companies and things like that, totally exploiting the attention data for their own use, and not really aligned with the users. | |||
There is a concern that if an architecture gets built here that can be exploited, it will be. Google AdSense brings something like $1B to spammers. It turns entire swaths of the Internet into ad-dominated slums. | |||
We need to be mindful of what we are inviting when we don't need to. | |||
There really is a profound function... that all of VRM rests of a core proposition that the sanctity of the user data is protected by policies and agreements, but the ultimate source of that is the vendor's respect for the customer. If the vendor is going to take that data and exploit it, and otherwise break the trust with the user, then everything will fall apart. | |||
What is the Data Rights agreement works as a contract? That's a start, but the cost of enforcing is a problem. | |||
===Planning=== | |||
We are growing and we need to solidify some things. | |||
==Status== | ==Status== | ||
Revision as of 14:16, 3 July 2007
Conference Call Notes
Drafted by Joe Andrieu, July 03, 2007
IRC
- vrm at chat.freenode.net
Prior Calls
Attendees
- Joe Andrieu
- Dean Landsman
- Nick Givotocsky
- Kevin Barron
- Chris Carfi
- Doc Searls
- Britt Blaser
- Drummond Reed
- Alan Mitchell
Notes
Oxford
Meeting in the UK on the July 16th in Oxford, hosted by Oxford Internet Institute (OII).
Expected attendees:
JP Ragaswami, Jeremy (tiddlywiki), a few more folks from SuperNova. Alan Mitchell, Iain Henderson, Mark Lizar, Andreana, Steve, Doc.
Perhaps a few more hand-picked folks. Doc likes that this is growing organically rather than promotionally. We'd rather have it grow that way rather than getting a bunch of people showing up and then having to weed out those that aren't really interested.
VRM & APML
The question that came up is wouldn't XDI/XRI be a good technology for sharing APML data. That is particularly relevant because there are folks associated with Higgins who are very interested in doing that. That form of attention data is about as a high a value as Doc's 'intention' work. Assuming we can correlate that attention to intention, that's pretty much near gold. So if there is a very low friction way for a customer to share that data in a high trust framework, we have a fairly strong benevolent virus.
The key thing is the category of a high-trust relationship. We are talking about a breed of relationships that happen in those conditions. However, we should be careful about handling marketing in this mix... this isn't about enabling the vendor to market more, it is about empowering the user. So we need to be careful about issues of user control and privacy.
Chris Skaad of Particle, the orginator of APML has been chatting with Nick. A lot of these concerns have been raised and there is an interest in addressing them. He does understand the user-side contract conditions.
John Clippinger of Berkman would say we don't have a lot of what we need to construct the user-side contracts. In the absence of a well-understood set of codified rights and privileges on the customer side, the user-side contract would be understood in the vendor's context.
This is one of the areas where the conversation with Particle has explored, so that the conditions of release are embedded in the APML. So that rights and permissions are associated and as important architecturally as the attention data itself. The challenge is to make it powerful and not proscriptive, so it can accomodate a full spectrum of models.
Doc can't imagine any conditions that would lead me to disclose my attention data to any vendors. I don't have any relationships that this makes sense for.
One question is to what extent do we want to make that a VRM thing? This can only work in the context of a developed relationship. This presupposes marriage in the absence of courtship.
The issue is that we don't have a clear use case for the user.
If you are able to present credentials that could give you access to media, that is useful.
Perhaps that's not APML, but is a non-media specific media licensing mechanism, so we can take the songs from our iPod to our iPhone to our PC to our work machine. Good VRM stuff.
Another potential use case: individuals trading data, selling information about yourself to make some money. This could definitely use APML.
Yet, we don't want to hand vendors the keys to the car they are going to run over us with.
One issues with "Attention" as a verb and a noun, is that one of the original players in the attention realm was surreptitiously reselling data to mortgage companies and things like that, totally exploiting the attention data for their own use, and not really aligned with the users.
There is a concern that if an architecture gets built here that can be exploited, it will be. Google AdSense brings something like $1B to spammers. It turns entire swaths of the Internet into ad-dominated slums.
We need to be mindful of what we are inviting when we don't need to.
There really is a profound function... that all of VRM rests of a core proposition that the sanctity of the user data is protected by policies and agreements, but the ultimate source of that is the vendor's respect for the customer. If the vendor is going to take that data and exploit it, and otherwise break the trust with the user, then everything will fall apart.
What is the Data Rights agreement works as a contract? That's a start, but the cost of enforcing is a problem.
Planning
We are growing and we need to solidify some things.
Status
| what | who | when | status |
| ---------- | ---------- | ---------- | ---------- |
| open id on wiki | david | no date | |
| static website development | doc, dean, joe, chris | no date | |
| group blog/RSS to wiki (venus) | doc | no date | up, talk to doc if you want to author |
| project VRM definition | doc | 1 week | still working on it |
| brainstorm Initiatives | all | ongoing |
Action Items
| what | who | when | status |