> The DataPortability Technical Blueprint aims to detail the basic
> mechanisms for linking a user's identity to their data, along
> with the necessary discovery mechanisms. This is achieved by leveraging a
> number of established identity and discovery
> standards, microformats, protocols, and technologies.
The effort is appreciated, but seems mighty premature - "the consumer
application MUST utilise OpenID Attribute Exchange" - c'mon, I don't
think there's been remotely near enough discussion to settle on such a
Maybe what the doc contains is the best approach to the particular
kind of data discovery it describes - but from what I see, there's no
way of telling, not even whether that particular kind of discovery is
a requirement for data portability. Even if it is, given 'invent
nothing', are there not existing approaches/specs? (There are.)
Personally I'd like to see some scenarios and use cases, followed by a
survey of alternate approaches and how they might fulfill what's
needed, before trying to get consensus on any particular solutions.
(I'll be more than happy to contribute to these).
Stepping back even further - do we have a roadmap or even any concrete
goals? What is the decision-making process? How will we know when
This group has some influential support and a vague consensus of good
intentions on its side. While I do believe we need to act quickly,
being hasty may disrupt those.
Sure, I appreciate that.
It is a concrete
> starting point.
With respect for the work that's gone into it, I would suggest a draft
spec is not a good place to start, because it's picking a path to go
down before we're even sure where we are.
If it's the right technical approach, to achieve any kind of broad
adoption the groundwork will still have to be done to see how it fits
in with existing technologies and to gain consensus. If it's the wrong
approach, either we waste a lot of time & effort (and possibly
support) arguing it out of the way, or we end up with the wrong
> Now we can debate the merits. Words like 'Must' are used technically -
> not dictatorially.
I'm familiar with the term from rfc2119, I've been in a few IETF WGs
(still am, technically... :-)
> The blueprint is indeed the start of what we are trying to achieve.
> Tying OpenID to User Services and then User Data. If you think there
> is a better way, or further definition of goals needed - then
> contribute them.
> As discussed here:
> The start of the beginning:
> The design principles:
Ok, that's *much* more like it.
Let me give you one concrete reason why. I have a telecon with
colleagues from the uk tomorrow morning. It's on the agenda, so I'll
no doubt be asked:
Q: "what the current status at DataPortability?"
A: "Well, a draft blueprint has just been published describing how to
use OpenId AX/Yadis/XRDS for data discovery"
Q: "interesting...why is that needed?"
A: "...it's a concrete starting point"
Q: "why OpenId AX/Yadis/XRDS?"
A: "er...because that's what's in the blueprint..?"
> Once again, if something is missing or rings false, then add it or
> refine it.
Yep, sure. My grumble isn't (yet ;-) with the specifics of the
proposal - it looks interesting - it's more about the cart being
pushed ahead of the horse. I reckon it'll be more in the group's
interests to wait until a little more groundwork has been done before