A system that models and coordinates real-time and near-real time device activity and interactivity.
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 <sampo@symlabs.com>
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.
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. 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. 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. 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. 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/
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 <sampo@symlabs.com>
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/
Again Sampo, see my replies below. 2010/2/2 <sampo@symlabs.com>
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.
You've enlightened me a bit on IoS, and I'll expand on this enlightenment below. Here, I'll address your contention that real-time might not be a differentiating factor. I've capitalised some of the terms here that represent Clique Space components as I have envisaged in the actual implementation. Clique Space, while being a trademark, is also capitalised because it is a component - or rather... oh you get what I mean. Ultimately, all activity concerning the storage, retrieval, and transmission of information involves the real-time interaction of electronic hardware and software devices. All these devices (to whatever level is deemed appropriate) can be Connected to a Clique Space, and the Clique Space to which they are Connected can be notified in some appropriate way of what they store, retrieve or transmit. Each and every device would be Connected to a Clique Space using an Account which represents some individual, and each Account would be Affiliated to some organisational role through an Account Profile. What Clique Space is notified of would usually only be an appropriate summary of what a device (a Client Device) actually did, because a device would still use whatever transport mechanism it regularly uses to collaborate. It is envisaged that the the Client Device requires some appropriate functional enhancement that allows it to Connect to a Clique Space through some appropriate Media Profile extension. The device's vendor perhaps would fashion the Media Profile as well as the Client Device's functional enhancements, and this Media Profile would be installed onto the Clique Space by the Clique Space's administrators.
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.
In that case, a PDS sounds mildly similar to a Clique Space's Agent Device. The Clique Space is composed of a set of Agent Devices which together form one or more Agent Collaborations. Each Agent Collaboration manifests a Clique Space, and Clique Space administrators control the number and function of Agent Devices within the corresponding Agent Collaboration. As with your description of a PDS, I imagine an Agent Device would usually be on a separate host, but indeed, the Client Device hardware might well be host to its own Agent Device either as embedded code, or as a separate process. Agent Devices are running instances of software that implement the Clique Space concept. Agent Devices are Client Devices in that their membership of an Agent Collaboration can be modelled in a Clique Space as a Clique in which they appear as a Participant. This ability of Clique Space to describe itself is another feature that I think is quite powerful. How does the term Agent Device PDS sound to you? So, Clique Space provides the opportunity to have individuals be known as controllers of every electronic hardware and software device in this world. I think this has bucket loads of potential, and gives accountability to the consequences of an individual's actions in a virtual exchange. There is no overlord in this scenario; individuals enter social contracts whenever they interact with other individuals to supply or procure services through their associated Client Devices. Every individual has the opportunity to take Clique Space device activity audit logs of their interaction with every other individual, and every individual uses their discretion when deciding when, and on what terms one is going to interact with another based on the same social contracts that form in a physical world. The "public" Clique Space, will not play big brother, so I wish to dispel any notions here. Not only is this unethical and not only would this encounter resistance in the form of boycott, but I would believe the public Clique Space would be very large; collecting and persisting an audit log of this size would ultimately be a constant of technical intractability, topped off with a paradoxical cherry.
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?
I suppose "the internet" has broadened in scope since it was conceived. It used to be TCP/IP and this is what I meant. Nearly everything today can be considered to be on the internet, but I do not believe that diminishes the value of the Clique Space concept.
The IoS folks are also trying to reach out and get collaborators. Sounds like potential match.
Cheers, --Sampo
That's just the idea that I'm after. I'll talk to the Head of Department at my uni and see what they think. Thanks for putting it out there. :) 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/
On 2 February 2010 11:13, Owen Thomas <owen.paul.thomas@gmail.com> wrote:
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.
In that case, a PDS sounds mildly similar to a Clique Space's Agent Device.
[...]
How does the term Agent Device PDS sound to you?
I've had time to read over IoS and TAS3. What I'm about to suggest appears a little too obvious to me, but basically showcases how Clique Space can be integrated with a PDS. This is a hypothetical situation. An individual's PDS is Connected to Clique Space using the individual's Account through a Media Profile named DeviceActivityLogger. Clique Space will capture the Client Device activity of any Client Device connected under the same Account, and this activity will be persisted in the PDS. Obviously, persisting PDS device activity concerning the storage of Client Device activity to the PDS would be suppressed because this would generate an infinite loop. In the public Clique Space, this suppression would be a Limiting Constraint applied to the Account Profile "Self", which is the topmost accessible Account Profile in the hierarchy for any Account except for those Accounts that possess and Affiliation to the "CliqueSpaceAdministrator" Account Profile. This Limiting Constraint is associated to a corresponding Enabling Constraint for the DeviceActivityLogger. 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/
participants (2)
-
Owen Thomas -
sampo＠symlabs.com