Owen Thomas wrote:
Hi Sampo.
I've started this message in a separate thread. I hope the new title is appropriate. See my replies where appropriate below.
2010/2/1
Owen Thomas wrote:
Hello Robin.
May I pick you up there on what you say about "spanning borders", and apply Clique Space to it. The notion of Clique spanning and Clique Space federations model many collaborative endeavours of the physical world in a virtual context.
Sampo wrote:
We are doing very similar research in the EU funded TAS3 project. Our notion is to make the plumbing (e.g. metadata exchange and basic trust establishment) fully automatic, but then rely on trust computation and scoring to determine exatly how close collaboration is possible with a given partner. This also connects with user driven access control.
Our business model for building the Circles-of-Trust appears as Annex E (really in the end of the document) of TAS3 architecture, available from http:/zxid.org/tas3/ "TAS3 Architecture Deliverable".
Another interesting initiative in this same space is the Internet of Subjects (IoS), http://www.iosf.org/ which advocates that the institutional web of trust should be a not-for-profit entity, such as a trust (pardon the pun) or foundation. This model does not require government to perform this function, but it clearly states that the entity should not have a commercial conflict of interest. I am trying to architect this such that multiple such foundations could coexist.
Indeed, it looks as both organisations are on to a similar bone to myself. However, there do seem to differences (merely complimentary - I envisage that there would be mutual advantage to getting Clique Space and these architectures to cooperate) and so let me attempt to explain some of the differences in relation to Clique Space.
I have had a very quick look over TAS3 and IoS and these are some of the impressions I draw from each.
TAS3 appears to concentrate on a authorisation/authentication mechanism for access to and transfer of electronically stored personal information. In this regard, Clique Space differs in that it was primarily conceived by me to handle real-time and near real-time operation of devices.
TAS3 is more about authorization and privacy preservation. The authentication bit is just necessary evil. I think one of the big features of TAS3 is ability to pass policies with PII such that the policies actually are enforced. ANother big is the audit framework. I do not understand why real-time would be differentiating factor. TAS3 web service calls certainly can happen in real-time.
The page that is displayed directly from the IoS link you provide explains the organisations philosophy stating that the only one who ultimately owns personal data is the person to whom it relates. This is a similar philosophy to the one that motivated me to conceive Clique Space. Again, the notion of Personal Data Stores and the like leads me to conclude that IoS is based around information storage and retrieval, and not device activity.
IoS model foresees ability to be your own identity and personal data storage provider, even to the point of running the PDS on your phone. That being said, it should still be noted that for majority of people a network side hosted PDS may be easier.
So, a bit more on the technical side...
There are a few things to consider with regard to a device and the network infrastructure it uses; Clique Space is neutral with regard to physical networks because devices may use different physical networks to "the internet". Hence, while multiple Clique Spaces might exist on one network (say, "the internet") one Clique Space may also span multiple networks.
Personally I view GPRS and 3G just as access technologies to internet. What other networks than internet do you see?
The "one Clique Space - multiple networks" paradigm may be achieved through federating multiple sub Clique Spaces, but this may be complicated, and I would envisage it would be easier simply to use Media Profiles, and do what is necessary to bring physical access to other networks on an internet based Clique Space through one or more Agent Devices that were underlying members of the associated Agent Collaboration.
Now, regarding the proprietary technology of Institutional Web of Trust, if this IPR gets released on royalty-free basis, but with revocation of license in case of law suit, I would actually view this as valuable founding capital for the foundation. It is pretty clear that such universal CoT would be disruptive business model, so if the foundation had in its portfolio a couple of patents, it could quite well defend itself, and its users, against the hostile forces.
Cheers, --Sampo
I have registered a patent for the technology. Its strength may yet be tested, and it is currently a PCT in international phase. It lapses 15 July.
I do not know what I am going to do at this moment with regard to turning this into a business should I get that chance. What I need is venture capital to help secure national phase patent applications, people willing to help in ongoing development of the system, and people to ultimately manage a public Clique Space.
The IoS folks are also trying to reach out and get collaborators. Sounds like potential match. Cheers, --Sampo
I envisage that the Clique Space system would be available free-of-charge so that anyone can set up and run a proprietary Clique Space without having to worry about outlay for the software. I would also be averse to charging users for registration of Accounts. I believe this would not only create resistance in the product's uptake, but runs against my philosophical notions of the sacrosanct nature of the self; I don't expect to be charged for existing in a physical world, so I will not accept the proposition that I might be charged for existence in a virtual extension.
The majority of revenue would be realised through federating proprietary Clique Spaces to the public Clique Space and in the registration of Account Profiles. I think the registration of Media Profiles might not provide a stable source of income for the public Clique Space, so I'm a bit reluctant to advocate charging their registration.
I may re-enrol at my alma mater to do a research Masters degree with Clique Space as the subject. I'm trying to get this uni involved in supporting Clique Space, and they have set up a time for me to give a seminar on the subject.
It would be great to hear that you or anyone else here might be able to help me in any way.
Thanks,
Owen.
-- www.cliquespace.net Clique Space(TM) Facebook Group: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=81335296379 Owen's Garden of Thought: http://owenpaulthomas.blogspot.com/