May 9 2007 Meeting notes: Difference between revisions

From Project VRM
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
 
m (Reverted edits by KruGer (Talk) to last version by Joe.andrieu)
 
(35 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 2: Line 2:
Drafted by Joe Andrieu, May 2, 2007
Drafted by Joe Andrieu, May 2, 2007


==IRC==
#vrm at chat.freenode.net


==Prior Conference Calls==
==Other Calls==
 
[[Category:conference call]]
Rather than do a standard subscribable podcast the calls are available for the list to download or stream.  They are posted as mp3 files and can be accessed as follows:
[[:Category:conference call]]
 
===May 2, 2007===
*[[meeting notes 2007 05 02]]
 
===March 21, 2007===
*[[meeting notes 2007 03 21]]
*[http://vrm.land-com.net/VRM_Conf03212007.mp3 audio 2007 03 21]
 
===March 8, 2007===
*[[meeting notes 2007 03 08]]
*no audio
===February 21, 2007===
*no meeting notes
*[http://www.vrm.land-com.net/VRM_Conf02222007.mp3 audio 2007 02 21]
===February 8, 2007===
*[[meeting notes 2007 02 08]]
*[http://www.vrm.land-com.net/VRM_Conf02082007.mp3 audio 2007 02 08]
 
 


==Attendees==
==Attendees==
(please update with last names & IM if you'd like a backchannel during the call...)
* Joe Andrieu
* Joe Andrieu on JABBER: jandrieu@jabber.links.org
* Iain Henderson
* Dean Landsman
* Kevin Barron
* Doc Searls
* Matt Terenzio
* Drummond Reed
* Nick Givitovsky


==Status==
==Status==
Line 48: Line 37:
|Set up Jabber Host for conference calls||doc||no date||''new''
|Set up Jabber Host for conference calls||doc||no date||''new''
|}
|}
Unfortunately Doc won't be able to join us today.


Joe: remind Dean about transcript.
Joe: remind Dean about transcript.


===Report from Brussels===
==Notes==
Doc led a session at the Open Identity event last week.  Britt took a look at how Liberty Alliance's architecture might help.
 
One foundation of VRM is the personal RFP, a way for individuals to express their buying desires in a way that vendors can respond directly.  Britt sees a personal RFP as an aspect of a person's Identity.  That would be put on the web so buyers could find them, analyze them, and discover with them a potential match for what they could provide me.  At its basic, the WSF (web services framework) is a way to do just that: provide aspects of identity securely over the Internet.


Liberty Alliance is a standards body for federated identity and identity services.
===Agenda===
* Update from Doc on Brussels
* IIW
* June 4th Discussion
* Use cases
* VRM blog
* Web page
* Point from last call


VRM still needs to define and XML syntax for what this RFP looks like. Some sort of product number, useful meta-data, etc. Some way for users to describe what they want to buy, maximum price, timing on purchase, etc.
===Brussels===
Identity Open Space, hosted by Bret McDowell and run by Kaliya Hamlin.


The web services is really about moving around that type of identity-centric document.
Great talk given by JP Ragaswami: "Because of" effect of making money "because of" rather than "with" a particular technology.


So, we have schemas that specify, for example, a calendar format that allows people to share calendar data through this framework.
What Iain is working on is quite a detailed document on B2B VRM.
Consider a use case where Alice is specifying the RFP, but Dad is paying for it.  This is discussed on the [[Technology]] page.


===Social Use Cases===
Ben Laurie invited Doc up to visit Google. He's one of the Apache leaders, now doing stuff for Google.
The thought of this term triggered some concerns about a data mining case.


Think of gift registries. I'm a Bride or Groom. Where the good is registered in an identity-capable registry.  Liberty's People Service enables this to allow access to the invited people without needing a unique accountThe relationship specified by the Bride and confirmed upon login could be used by a VRM system to integrate this information, mapping the desires of the bride against, for example the budget constraints of a particular guest (assuming such constraint is also made available via a People Service for the guest).
Good diagram that brought together a bunch of VRM-related concepts. The main thing that came out for Iain was the interest by the Liberty Alliance guys to contribute to VRMHe agreed to join the Liberty Alliance. His hope is that we will join him.


In an RFP, there are two different pieces of information: what I want and what I'm willing to payIn a social application, those might be controlled by separate people.
Doc mentions Paul Madsen (of Liberty) had already contributed to the wiki, but it went away.   


One scenario is that we don't actually need a means to reconcile offered prices, accepted bids, etc. Just a means to engage in a sales conversation.
Paul had presented a working framework that is already workable, using standards-based exchanges for VRM. Liberty is probably the most down-stream of the identity systems for data to be trustably exchanged in an enterprise framework.


We need mechanisms for discovering the guests and their price threshold information. People Services can handle that.
One thing we should explore is how to match up technologies like Liberty, like what Iain is working on, with particular use cases and how that would play out. Doc is going to be talking tomorrow/Friday morning with some of the Higgins folks. Higgins is a framework for multiple identity systems. I'd like to outline where some of these different technologies fit in.


===Information RFPs===
Adriana was also there. Iain and she will be meeting tomorrow to continue the conversation.  She works with J&J among other companies. Doc met with them last October at a meeting. They are interested in exploring VRM and Adriana is the link into them.
We could also put out RFPs that are inquiries regarding informational needs rather than just purchase criteria.


Thus, the implicit relationship embedded the RFP can provide some interesting services.
===IIW===
Let's try to set up a call-in conference at one of the break-outs so that folks who can't be there in person can join in for a session.
===June 4===
At Berkman in Harvard, we've set up to have a meeting on VRM. Berkman has an affiliation with the Internet Study Center (or something like that) at Oxford. And they have a really good teleconference set up that might be useful for folks in the UK.


===Personal Data Silos===
We'll be discussing VRM in the AM and public radio/media in the afternoon.
The liberty model seems to support this as well. For a movie-list provider, I would define what conditions the provider releases the RFPs or personal data. Some might be public. Others might be restricted.


So how about being able to specify "Movie Services" as a restriction, rather than explicitly as NetFlix or Amazon or BlockBuster.
===Public Media/Public Radio===
On the ride back from Brussels, Doc & Ben had an interesting conversation about the public media effort and Ben thinks that particularly use case has a viable solution using a relatively small number of use cases.


Ping ID used to provide a similar service. It'd be nice to have a Hoover's or D&B to offer a categorization service for vendors.
The interesting challenge there is pulling apart transaction and relationship. Generally, it works today by buying membership from a station, which in part means an unending supply of junk mail and solicitations.


===Making this available===
What I'd like to do for the Berkman meeting is to come up with ideas for how that might be done. How we might separate the membership relationship from a simple, targeted contribution to a particular program.
How do we make this available to the vendor?  WHen a user authenticates to the vendor, they wouldn't generally sign in at the vendor, but through an identity provider. So they authenticate, for example, to Google, then go to Amazon. As the user has single-sign-on in, then Amazon uses the SSO to secure information such as shipping or geolocation in the course of the interaction at the web site.


So, Amazon kicks things off by querying an identity search for that users VRM providers they are engaged with (kept track at the identity provider, Google in this case)Amazon gets this list back, filters out inappropriate VRM providers, and sends a query to the chosen VRM provider (perhaps including the user in the process), asking for Joe's RFPs. The VRM provider responds by delivering the RFPs to Amazon.  Amazon tries to match the RFP to viable products, making those available to the user.
So, perhaps we can create a solution cobbling together some technologies, then start working through organizational and political issues to get the solution deployedThere's a national organization, each station has its own issues, and then each producer of the individual shows. All of three have their own concerns and challenges.


There are other models where the discovery of the VRM is more distributed. In theory, I could just put the RFP on my blog and let Amazon discover it.
Even if it doesn't work... Doc would like to see it fail for political rather than technical reasons. So lets find the technical solution and then work through the politics.


We could perhaps set up a neutral clearinghouse for vendors and users to have a trusted safe place where the user is the arbiter: including syntax and business practices that enable these sorts of transactions.
Keith Hopper of Public Interactive suggested that what we need is a new public station or make a new Internet-only national station, in order to try out whatever it is that we are going to do.  That could be a working test-bed. It could have its own problems, but since Keith suggested, he might have a better idea of what might be involved with that. PI handles pretty much all the technology for public radio.
===Use Cases===
* Public Radio
* Personal Data Silos
** Customer retain the memory of prior interactions with a particular supplier


There needs to be some mechanism for quickly identifying the scope or purpose of an RFP.  Vendors should not have to filter every RFP.
Stories: Doc told story about problems with a vendor where the history of the customer service was problematic.


The Liberty Model is that the Vendor queries the RFP when the user shows up, rather than trying to scan the entire Internet.
We need a totally agnostic body, a clearinghouse where both vendors and users can go without fear of mining, spamming, or fishery--not Google or Yahoo, etc. But somewhere that vendors & users have equal, shared control of the relationship-related data.


One thing VRM might fix is the problem of finding things. If I could submit an RFP and never have to visit an vendor site.
Drummond Reed mentioned his own efforts to solve this problem (commercially).


The challenge remains that when the vendor finds a user.


One option: put the RFP as an Identity-filterable blog post, tag it as a particular type of RFP, ping a clearinghouse, then allow access and comments by selected vendors (hopefully selected as a class of Vendor).  the structure and usability of such a service *must* be presented and developed in such a way that it is easily integrated into existing software and ops in use by vendors.  Acceptance, more so, the ability for vendors to grasp and use the service, is critical to succees.
Looking at the customer-history tracking, what is the minimal set of data-types that need to be presented to each other?


The choice of response channel should potentially be set by the user, allowing either email-style responses, "comments" on an RFP blog, or some other mechanism.
As the customer, you have a specific memory, while the vendor has a general system of data that may not be well-focused or accessible.  In helping the end-customer, it is about taking customer knowledge and sharing it with the vendor in such a way to plug it into their system.


We've talked about two extremes, where visiting a vendor triggers the vendor. The other where the user posts the personal RFP on its own. Another alternative is that visiting a site could establish the relationship and then participate in a VRM conversation outside the context of the website.
Example: in a service relationship, where you appeared in person. So you had to represent that in person and represent that problem coherently. Nick got sent a wrong part by a refigerator company. And had to call a bunch of people. He documented that on his website, and was able to send that information to the next individual.


===Tracking quality vendors===
Another option is how Nordstom's attaches a return-UPC to the item.
There isn't any current way for users to know whether or not a given vendor is a good actor. Reputation is one vehicle for addressing this, but we also perhaps need to establish codes of conduct or rules of engagement that vendors are accountable for, either through reputation, legal recourse, or some other means.


===Automation===
The challenge is that each company may or may not accept anyone else's UPC. Which suggests that the easy, semi-automatic documentation of service history controlled by the user, we have a lot more viability, especially with adversarial vendors.
It may be challenging for individuals to actually respond to RFPs, so we need some sort of streamlining or automation. However, shopatron is one system that actually requires humans to make a commitment to fulfiling an RFP.  


In fact, that is how Shopatron gets around the apparent need to know all the inventory of all the retailers that might fulfill the order.
On top of that, we can also record whatever lookup code or case #, that might be provided by the vendors, allowing a hook back into the vendor system, should the vendor be able to respond to it.


===Dictionaries===
Interestingly, the hook provides the fastest way for the vendor to pull up the countervailing evidence to compare with the customer-provided history.
There is a challenge for understanding what users really want. An explicit dictionary can help address this. One way of solving this problem is some sort of taxonomy or folksonomy.


We've talked a variety of different ways that people could support this. From Twitter, we've seen them provide access via a large number of different on-ramps.
In terms of adoption, this is in some ways related to the web. Somebody had to be first.


Part of our task is how do we integrate through as many media as possible?
Perhaps this is essentially a digital receipt.  So, to the extent that we can request digital receipts go to a specific identity.  And these "digital receipts" could cover service transactions just as readily as purchases.


Both what is the XML document and what does the content mean (dictionary)?
Staples is actually pretty forward thinking in this way.  Dean shared a frustrating experience that he escalated to the president--cold calling his voice mail--and they actually bent over backwards to fix it.


And how do people interact with systems that use that document? (on ramps)
This may also provide some interesting advantage as an early adopter if they can provide these "digital receipts" back to enterprise customers who might be able to more easily track that as corporate expenses.


===VRM Flowchart===
Someone asked for a VRM flowchart. I think that could be a useful tool, if we can figure out what it means.


In considering accessing data from multiple web-based silos, every website has its own vernacular.  So, one option is that every site change to use a canonical dictionary. Alternatively, one could support a translation capability into a canonical dictionary.  And even more distributed, translation to /any/ shared dictionary would enable communication.  And if any series of translations can convert a source term into an understandable term, that would work too. Taking this one step further, anyone could provide a translation mechanism if there were a central registry that could maintain quality controls and resolve queries against potential source data.
There was one Johannes Ernst drew at IIW 2006b. Paul Madsen drew another one at IOS in Brussels.


===Organic results===
===Dictionary/Glossary===
It would also be nice if successful VRM transactions could be coordinated as a sort of "automatic recommendation" for users who submit similar RFPs. For example, if Bob puts out an RFP for a particular type of running shoe, and finds a vendor. It may be useful to recommend that vendor to others who post similar RFPs.  This is a sort of bottoms-up architecture for automatically generating "organic" recommendations in response to RFPs.
It is critical that we have a common terminology, common glossary so as we move forward, we can actually have a clear understanding of what we are doing.


===IIW 2007===
==IIW 2007==
The next major live even for VRM development, evangelizing, and camaraderie is the [http://www.windley.com/events/latest/announcement.shtml Internet Identity Workshop] in Mountain View, May 14-16.  Many of us will be there. We hope you can join us.
The next major live even for VRM development, evangelizing, and camaraderie is the [http://www.windley.com/events/latest/announcement.shtml Internet Identity Workshop] in Mountain View, May 14-16.  Many of us will be there. We hope you can join us.



Latest revision as of 04:35, 1 December 2009

Conference Call Notes

Drafted by Joe Andrieu, May 2, 2007

IRC

  1. vrm at chat.freenode.net

Other Calls

Category:conference call

Attendees

  • Joe Andrieu
  • Iain Henderson
  • Dean Landsman
  • Kevin Barron
  • Doc Searls
  • Matt Terenzio
  • Drummond Reed
  • Nick Givitovsky

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, but only one author
project VRM definition doc 1 week still working on it
brainstorm Initiatives all ongoing
Set up Jabber Host for conference calls doc no date new

Joe: remind Dean about transcript.

Notes

Agenda

  • Update from Doc on Brussels
  • IIW
  • June 4th Discussion
  • Use cases
  • VRM blog
  • Web page
  • Point from last call

Brussels

Identity Open Space, hosted by Bret McDowell and run by Kaliya Hamlin.

Great talk given by JP Ragaswami: "Because of" effect of making money "because of" rather than "with" a particular technology.

What Iain is working on is quite a detailed document on B2B VRM.

Ben Laurie invited Doc up to visit Google. He's one of the Apache leaders, now doing stuff for Google.

Good diagram that brought together a bunch of VRM-related concepts. The main thing that came out for Iain was the interest by the Liberty Alliance guys to contribute to VRM. He agreed to join the Liberty Alliance. His hope is that we will join him.

Doc mentions Paul Madsen (of Liberty) had already contributed to the wiki, but it went away.

Paul had presented a working framework that is already workable, using standards-based exchanges for VRM. Liberty is probably the most down-stream of the identity systems for data to be trustably exchanged in an enterprise framework.

One thing we should explore is how to match up technologies like Liberty, like what Iain is working on, with particular use cases and how that would play out. Doc is going to be talking tomorrow/Friday morning with some of the Higgins folks. Higgins is a framework for multiple identity systems. I'd like to outline where some of these different technologies fit in.

Adriana was also there. Iain and she will be meeting tomorrow to continue the conversation. She works with J&J among other companies. Doc met with them last October at a meeting. They are interested in exploring VRM and Adriana is the link into them.

IIW

Let's try to set up a call-in conference at one of the break-outs so that folks who can't be there in person can join in for a session.

June 4

At Berkman in Harvard, we've set up to have a meeting on VRM. Berkman has an affiliation with the Internet Study Center (or something like that) at Oxford. And they have a really good teleconference set up that might be useful for folks in the UK.

We'll be discussing VRM in the AM and public radio/media in the afternoon.

Public Media/Public Radio

On the ride back from Brussels, Doc & Ben had an interesting conversation about the public media effort and Ben thinks that particularly use case has a viable solution using a relatively small number of use cases.

The interesting challenge there is pulling apart transaction and relationship. Generally, it works today by buying membership from a station, which in part means an unending supply of junk mail and solicitations.

What I'd like to do for the Berkman meeting is to come up with ideas for how that might be done. How we might separate the membership relationship from a simple, targeted contribution to a particular program.

So, perhaps we can create a solution cobbling together some technologies, then start working through organizational and political issues to get the solution deployed. There's a national organization, each station has its own issues, and then each producer of the individual shows. All of three have their own concerns and challenges.

Even if it doesn't work... Doc would like to see it fail for political rather than technical reasons. So lets find the technical solution and then work through the politics.

Keith Hopper of Public Interactive suggested that what we need is a new public station or make a new Internet-only national station, in order to try out whatever it is that we are going to do. That could be a working test-bed. It could have its own problems, but since Keith suggested, he might have a better idea of what might be involved with that. PI handles pretty much all the technology for public radio.

Use Cases

  • Public Radio
  • Personal Data Silos
    • Customer retain the memory of prior interactions with a particular supplier

Stories: Doc told story about problems with a vendor where the history of the customer service was problematic.

We need a totally agnostic body, a clearinghouse where both vendors and users can go without fear of mining, spamming, or fishery--not Google or Yahoo, etc. But somewhere that vendors & users have equal, shared control of the relationship-related data.

Drummond Reed mentioned his own efforts to solve this problem (commercially).


Looking at the customer-history tracking, what is the minimal set of data-types that need to be presented to each other?

As the customer, you have a specific memory, while the vendor has a general system of data that may not be well-focused or accessible. In helping the end-customer, it is about taking customer knowledge and sharing it with the vendor in such a way to plug it into their system.

Example: in a service relationship, where you appeared in person. So you had to represent that in person and represent that problem coherently. Nick got sent a wrong part by a refigerator company. And had to call a bunch of people. He documented that on his website, and was able to send that information to the next individual.

Another option is how Nordstom's attaches a return-UPC to the item.

The challenge is that each company may or may not accept anyone else's UPC. Which suggests that the easy, semi-automatic documentation of service history controlled by the user, we have a lot more viability, especially with adversarial vendors.

On top of that, we can also record whatever lookup code or case #, that might be provided by the vendors, allowing a hook back into the vendor system, should the vendor be able to respond to it.

Interestingly, the hook provides the fastest way for the vendor to pull up the countervailing evidence to compare with the customer-provided history.

In terms of adoption, this is in some ways related to the web. Somebody had to be first.

Perhaps this is essentially a digital receipt. So, to the extent that we can request digital receipts go to a specific identity. And these "digital receipts" could cover service transactions just as readily as purchases.

Staples is actually pretty forward thinking in this way. Dean shared a frustrating experience that he escalated to the president--cold calling his voice mail--and they actually bent over backwards to fix it.

This may also provide some interesting advantage as an early adopter if they can provide these "digital receipts" back to enterprise customers who might be able to more easily track that as corporate expenses.

VRM Flowchart

Someone asked for a VRM flowchart. I think that could be a useful tool, if we can figure out what it means.

There was one Johannes Ernst drew at IIW 2006b. Paul Madsen drew another one at IOS in Brussels.

Dictionary/Glossary

It is critical that we have a common terminology, common glossary so as we move forward, we can actually have a clear understanding of what we are doing.

IIW 2007

The next major live even for VRM development, evangelizing, and camaraderie is the Internet Identity Workshop in Mountain View, May 14-16. Many of us will be there. We hope you can join us.

Action Items

what who when status

Next Meeting