Re: Task Force - DataPortability vision
Dan Brickley
> (cutting this over from Steering; excuse formatting I've only just figured out how to send from this email account)
Addressing one point here from Phil's message:
"Is the vision document about data portability (the idea) or
DataPortability.org (the community organization)?"
> Elias Bizannes wrote:
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> Here is the google group the Vision task force will collaborate under
>> my chairmanship, with a draft report due by September 1.
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/dataportability-vision-task-force
>>
>> The goal of the task force is to formally define what
>> "DataPortability" means. This will be an interesting excercise, and
>> one that will have implications for the Project going forward.
>>
>> Open for anyone to join and participate. Details to follow.
>
> I suggest making an explicit distinction; one that this project has
> historically not made very crisply. Vision statements should separate
> the broad concept of 'data portability' from 'dataportability.org' the
> organization/project. We should make it possible for others to be
> enthusiastic champions of data-portability-the-concept without
> necessarily having bought into a belief in this current project's
> ability to deliver on that common vision. Making this distinction will
> not be comfortable, but it is much needed.
>
> At first glance, the incentives run the other way: to the extent
> dataportability.org can conflate itself with the general notion of 'data
> portability', questions such as 'do you support data portability'
> benefit the organization. However, this situation is widely noticed and
> not universally appealing. I believe it goes some way towards explaining
> the lack of buy-in from related projects and initiatives: the .org is
> seen as as a turf-grab. The key to a healthy 'social Web' scene is for
> common terminology to be de-politicised. Right now, the use, or non-use,
> of the phrase "data portability" is deeply tangled up with a particular
> project and organization.
>
> I'm assuming here that one goal is to help ferment pressure from
> non-tech-scene end users. For this to succeed, the language for
> articulating these needs should be something that everyone in the social
> Web scene can get behind. Right now, that is not "data portability". We
> don't see it on the front page of the OpenID site; or on the OAuth site;
> or on the XMPP site; or Microformats (although 'portable' is used); or
> (yet) on the FOAF site.
>
> There's a debate to be had on whether 'data portability' is the best
> concept to lead a consumer-facing push with. But setting that aside for
> now... my point is just that we won't get the phrase 'data portability'
> into lasting use without de-coupling it a little from this
> organization/project. Other orgs/projects should be comfortable pushing
> it, even if they are luke warm on the prospects for dataportability.org.
>
> cheers,
>
> Dan
>
>
> --
> http://danbri.org/
>
Elias Bizannes
reason the phrase is widely used. Decoupling is not only not in our
interest but unfair.
However, your critique is valid and I'm glad you raised it even though
I don't fully agree. As a middle ground could we simply decouple
"DataPortability" and "data portability"? Or is that not enough?
Sent from my iPhone
On 23/07/2008, at 7:41 PM, Dan Brickley <dan...@danbri.org> wrote:
> (cutting this over from Steering)
> (Elias, if the mail doesn't get thru, can you fwd?)
Dan Brickley
> That's a fair point Dan. But do be honest, the organisation is the
(I'm sure you're not accusing me of dishonesty...)
> reason the phrase is widely used. Decoupling is not only not in our
> interest but unfair.
You're right, and this is a central dilemma for DP. How to avoid a
"fifteen minutes of fame" syndrome as the tech scene moves on to the
next buzzword. The phrase "data portability" has value, but it is far
from unique.
We've already seen "data availability" in recent weeks. And five years
back, "social software" was all the rage. "Open data" is also long used,
and continues to gain traction through Creative Commons and related
eforts. There will always be some new phrase from some new proponents
(with associated domain names carefully bought, alliances sketched out)
being used to re-articulate things we already kinda know (eg. 'web
2.0'). Most will fall flat, others will have their "Scoble moment" and
get their time in the spotlight. And most of those will end up with the
faintly dated feel that "social software" currently enjoys. The game
here is to come up with a plan for "data portability" being different.
My theory is that the key to clinging on is organizational modesty. In
identifying other organizations and initiatives who share a common
direction, even if they differ in terminology, priorities, and scope. To
celebrate their work, even if it's not initially reciprocated. Do that
for a couple of years, and the phrase should safely enter common usage.
I guess I'm saying, 'if you love something, set it free'...
> However, your critique is valid and I'm glad you raised it even though I
> don't fully agree. As a middle ground could we simply decouple
> "DataPortability" and "data portability"? Or is that not enough?
Those two sound just the same in spoken form - eg. conferences,
telecons. But yes, the DataPortability form could serve as a symbol for
the Org. I think there are many ways to stress the distinction. In
vision statements we might say things like ...
"The notion of Data Portability is based on an awareness of the growing
centrality of computing to everyday life, and the concern that
non-technical Web users can unknowingly tie their online activities to
companies and services in ways that risk needlessly fragmentated or even
lost information. Data Portability concerns have long been part of
Internet and Web culture, where data standards and free-flowing
information have always been valued. The DataPortability Organization
itself was created in 2007 to help focus consumer and IT attention on
the growing technical and social problems and opportunities surrounding
data portability on the modern Web. The organization's role is to
interconnect, evaluate and champion diverse approaches to the data
portability problem, helping consumers understand the issues, companies
keep their promises, and engineers understand the non-technical
constraints that arise when data becomes portable." ... etc
... detail could go either way, but I think something that
* shows we understand there are other orgs and traditions with the
same values, goals; some ancestors, some siblings...
* allow 'data portability' terminology in plain prose to not refer to
the org or implicitly endorse it
* understand the broad scope of the problem requires many overlapping
approaches
Here's an analogy. O'Reilly managed to establish "web 2.0" in common
use, while still keeping it as a name for their popular conference
series. If there was a "Web 2.0" formal organization with a Steering
Committee and treasurer etc., I suspect people would be much more wary
in using the term.
Elias Bizannes
From: Dan Brickley <dan...@danbri.org>
Date: Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 10:11 PM
Subject: Re: Task Force - DataPortability vision
To: Elias Bizannes <elias.b...@gmail.com>
Cc: dan...@danbri.org
Just noticed this was offlist, after i wrote a big long reply :) feel free to fwd it if you like... replying 1:1 here for now. --dan
Elias Bizannes wrote:
I felt like you started not agreeing, but ended up agreeing. If we can 'set free' data portability (I totally agree with your points by the way), but we 'trademark' DataPortability (upper case; concatenated) to refer to the organisation and our views - is that kosher?
I think the brand, is one of our biggest assets. But I'll save going on - if you could clarify above, then I'll respond appropriately. Although by distancing from data portability, this almost defeats the purpose of this task force.
So we have two things to position on an imaginary scale. The scale runs from bland-bordering-meaningless to highly-specific-technical-compliance-roadmap. Both the phrase "data portability" and the formal Org can be positioned on this imaginary scale.
I suggest positioning the phrase "data portability" towards the vague end; "data portability" indicates a general problem space, initially motivated by social Web concerns but also touching on the broader efforts around Semantic Web, Open Data (Creative Commons, MusicBrainz, efforts like http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/ Wikipedia, ....). The "data portability" problems are generally of the form "how can this data be opened up (schemas, protocols, authentication, identification, privacy). And a great many approaches exist to addressing these problems. They're all worthy, they all overlap a bit, they have varying strengths and weaknesses. And they all "count" as first class contributions to the "data portability" debate. We need to be inclusive if the phrase is to stay in general use.
The second thing we can position on the scale is the DataPortability Organization. This naturally can and should be much more specific in its focussed activities. But since it takes as a name a word that is being used for a general problem area, it needs to avoid giving the impression that its chosen technical approach is the "one true roadmap" for portable data. How can we do this? I think by focussing more on the user side of the story, ... taking an advocacy approach similar to that seen with Creative Commons, or the Web Standards Project. Rather than trying to come up with the ultimate technical roadmap, we look at the semi-chaos of roadmaps bubbling out of industry and opensource collab, and evaluate them dispassionately in terms of what they mean for user's experience of the social Web.
If DataPortability the Org is ever to assume a leading role in evaluating, combining and blessing portable data techniques (rather than the current role - drawing attention to the general issue), I think it'll happen through being user advocates. For example, we might get a grant to do fund some user testing of OpenID or OAuth-based Web sites/services, and make sure the results are freely available to all.
The early publicity around DP got things this far, ... but the Org will have to show a different kind of value (beyond "here's the problem, something should be done"). I see a genuine niche on the user advocacy front, and one that gets us away from the question of which tech "stack" to bless. We bless them all as sincere attempts to improve the Web environment, and focus on pulling together real evidence for how these technologies play out when used by non-technical people. In this manner DP could be non-threatening to the existing technical initiatives, and yet offer real leadership and make a unique contribution to making things better. By contrast, talk of 'technical blueprints', roadmaps, compliance testing etc. is going to alienate those who are leading key technical iniatives in this area, since it implies a dominance/dominated relation between the different projects.
Example language:
Style 1. "DataPortability 1.0 Compliance for a Social Site requires that users can log in using OpenID version 2.0 or greater."
Style 2. "DataPortability's research suggests significant usability improvement can be gained from the [...] features of OpenID version 2. See [...] in the OpenID wiki for help in upgrading common libraries, and [...] in the DataPortability wiki for a study on OpenID UI issues with Mobile Web browsers".
The first style suits a busy middle manager who has been told to make their site be "data portability" compatible. Roughly the Jessica Pratner role in http://www.w3.org/WAI/redesign/personas ie. "I haven't got time to mess around. I need to know where we stand, legally speaking".
The second style is vaguer. But I think it is also helpful, positive, and -critically when we think about political industry jostling- it is non-threatening. There are all kinds of reasons why I'm not optimistic about Style 1 for DataPortability, but it's probably more positive to stress that I'd be excited to see a "Style 2" DataPortability Organization take shape.
Elias Bizannes
From: Elias Bizannes <elias.b...@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 10:29 PM
Subject: Re: Task Force - DataPortability vision
So I suppose your issue is more about what we as an organisation do. The differences in punctuation will be acceptable to you, if the positioning as an organisation is one of advocacy (mainly for user). Our niche is in representing consumers, and our influence will come from that status associated with that. And if we allow data portability to be a broad everything phrase, DataPortability should only be used if we bless multiple even competing standards, but not "one".
So your answer is a yes and no. Yes but only if we change our broader strategy. No, if we decide to go about the current strategy.
OpenId can be a DataPortability technology because it is compatible with our overall vision which is technology independent; but a site that doesn't use OpenId isn't necessarily not DataPortability.
Do I interpret correctly this time?
Elias Bizannes
From: Dan Brickley <dan...@danbri.org>
Date: Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 10:43 PM
Subject: Re: Task Force - DataPortability vision
So I suppose your issue is more about what we as an organisation do. The differences in punctuation will be acceptable to you, if the positioning as an organisation is one of advocacy (mainly for user). Our niche is in representing consumers, and our influence will come from that status associated with that. And if we allow data portability to be a broad everything phrase, DataPortability should only be used if we bless multiple even competing standards, but not "one".
So your answer is a yes and no. Yes but only if we change our broader strategy. No, if we decide to go about the current strategy.
OpenId can be a DataPortability technology because it is compatible with our overall vision which is technology independent; but a site that doesn't use OpenId isn't necessarily not DataPortability.
Do I interpret correctly this time?
cheers
Dan
Phil Wolff
I think we all think of "data portability" as the generic.
I have a preference for DataPortability.org over DataPortability to refer to the organization.
Counting the ways...
- .org said aloud (daht ohrg) is clearly different from the generic. (daat owg, in Australian?)
- .org clearly refers to a group of people sharing a common interest
-
.org reinforces its foundational, community, non-commercial interest
- .org points people to the web site, the resource and legacy
- .org invites bloggers and other web writers to turn the name into a link back to dataportability.org instead of to a wikipedia entry
- .org is shorter than adding "project" or "foundation" and keeps the name to one word (no spaces)
Elias Bizannes
Sent from my iPhone