Image by davemc500hats via Flickr

One thing that has been becoming clearer and clearer to me is the need to an agreed central authority for identify. This is one thing, possibly the one thing, that needs to be absolutely secure and inviolable for Open Science to work. Trust relies on provenance. Attribution, which is at the heart of open practice, relies on provenance. And pulling all of my data together from multiple streams in an automatic way relies on a record of their provenance.

There has been a lot of discussion about Google App Engine but two posts in particular have collided for me. First was the first blog post about an app I saw off the rank which uses a Google account to access an open id. Useful and cool. Secondly was the emphasis in another post from David Recordon about Google Apps as a potential Facebook Killer that the access to Google accounts is a key part of the offering.

Then I realised. Google already probably had the highest penetration as a validator of identities but these only really provide access to Google services. OpenID is great in principle but is not perhaps getting the traction it needs to go global. But all of that now just goes away. If you can write an app to authenticate someone via Google and then link that to OpenID you can do it for anything. Google have just positioned themselves to be the de facto provider of identities. And they may have solved the provenance problem into the bargain.

Picture and Wikipedia links via Zemanta.

Posted: April 9th, 2008 under identity, provenance.
Comments: 7

I’ve been mulling over this for a while, and seeing as I am home sick (can’t you tell from the rush of posts?) I’m going to give it a go. This definitely comes with a health warning as it goes way beyond what I know much about at any technical level. This is therefore handwaving of the highest order. But I haven’t come across anyone else floating the same ideas so I will have a shot at explaning my thoughts.

The Semantic Web, RDF, and XML are all the product of computer scientists thinking about computers and information. You can tell this because they deal with straightforward declarations that are absolute. X has property Y. Putting aside all the issues with the availability of tools and applications, the fact that triple stores don’t scale well, regardless of all the technical problems a central issue with applying these types of strategy to the real world is that absolutes don’t exist. I may assert that X has property Y, but what hppens when I change my mind, or when I realise I made a mistake, or when I find out that the underlying data wasn’t taken properly. How do we get this to work in the real world? Read more »

Posted: March 25th, 2008 under data formats, data model, open data, provenance, quad, rdf, semantics, triple, trust.
Comments: 2