Ricardo: Created page with "Why is Tim Berners-Lee relevant? What did he say that makes him deserve a mention? Random "aims at", "intends to", "guided by" are made bold for no reason throughout the entire article. Almost all the sources in this article are Wikipedia articles, Wikipedia is a collection of sources but not a legitimate source for most things by itself.
Why it matters
Very strong AI smell. "Why it matters" should also be at the bottom. First introduce what t..."

2026-06-20T15:37:02Z

Created page with "Why is Tim Berners-Lee relevant? What did he say that makes him deserve a mention? Random "aims at", "intends to", "guided by" are made bold for no reason throughout the entire article. Almost all the sources in this article are Wikipedia articles, Wikipedia is a collection of sources but not a legitimate source for most things by itself. <blockquote>Why it matters</blockquote> Very strong AI smell. "Why it matters" should also be at the bottom. First introduce what t..."

New page

Why is Tim Berners-Lee relevant? What did he say that makes him deserve a mention?

Random "aims at", "intends to", "guided by" are made bold for no reason throughout the entire article.

Almost all the sources in this article are Wikipedia articles, Wikipedia is a collection of sources but not a legitimate source for most things by itself.

<blockquote>Why it matters</blockquote>
Very strong AI smell. "Why it matters" should also be at the bottom. First introduce what this is even about.

What questions is the R&D project supposed to solve? You need a problem analysis and problems to solve first. You can not present a hypothesis without that.

What is a Ring of Trust? Not clear at all.

The difference between private data and published data can be explained much more simple.

<blockquote>expressing them as RDF, JSON-LD, and Wikidata-linked resources, in the spirit of Linked Data and the Semantic Web</blockquote>
List of random technical stuff, meaningless.

<blockquote>Governance of all this is intended to be decided in a participative context, not dictated from above.</blockquote>
"X is Y, not Z", strong AI smell.

<blockquote>WikiDeal intends to publish anonymized aggregate statistics</blockquote>
We can not do this if user's private is already not stored. How can we anonymize data and publish it and if it doens't exist in the first place by design? Either we can read the user's data (which we shouldn't), or we can not, and then it doesn't need to be anonymized.

<blockquote>As an initial hypothesis, a babysitting agreement signed by both parties would live on the devices of the family and the babysitter, while the platform Infrastructure would hold only a cryptographic proof that the agreement was signed</blockquote>
When did we put cryptography into this? Nothing else suggest cryptography.

Also why we need to know the agreement was signed? That goes against local-first. "Only the minimum necessary information"

<blockquote>this is a starting point, not a settled stance.</blockquote>
"X is Y, not Z"

<blockquote>Holochain (Wikipedia), an agent-centric peer-to-peer framework where each participant keeps their own validated data, with no global ledger. Note: Holochain is not blockchain-based; instead of one shared ledger maintained by global consensus, each agent holds its own hash chain and data is shared over a distributed hash table.</blockquote>

This entire description does not mean anything. A normal person will not know what any of this means. It uses vague technical terms and I don't know what Holochain is and what problem it could solve for us either.

<blockquote>IPFS (Wikipedia), content addressing, and, where genuinely useful, distributed ledgers.</blockquote>
I use IPFS personally for filesharing sometimes and this description does not do it justice. Same problem as holochain as well. What is a distributed ledger?

<blockquote>This connects to</blockquote>
AI smell. Normal persona would have mentioned it earlier.

<blockquote>How reputation could be presented while keeping the underlying ratings private is one of the open questions to be studied</blockquote>
Finally something honest and a problem to solve.

The Select disclosure section suddenly starts talking about funders, which have nothing to do with anything mention earlier. Very abrupt random mention.

<blockquote>This research direction is intended to be developed in line with applicable data-protection and digital-identity law, not against it.</blockquote>
"X, not Y" AI smell. Completely pointless to mention "Not against it" that's obviously from the first part of the sentence.

Legal compliance mentions GDPR and eIDAS 2.0. I know those things exist, but it does not say how they are relevant or what we are going to do with them.

<blockquote>The following is an initial hypothesis, not a roadmap.</blockquote>
"X, not Y"

<blockquote>The guiding idea is simple: protection is complete by default, and users could then choose, transaction by transaction, to share more in exchange for specific advantages, always under citizen supervision.</blockquote>
Just because you tell the AI not to use emdashes, doesn't mean it will stop trying to create the same kind of unreadable sentences using other characters instead.

Also what advantages can a user get by sharing data? Getting advantages for "sharing" your data is the sort of thing that proprietary companies do...

It is still unclear what the point of this entire article is. Showing some random unrelated titbits of ideas of what we maybe eventually want to do? A concrete vision or goal is still very much missing here.

Please do not copy my feedback into the AI and tell it to "fix it". I think a human needs to write this down for you properly.

Talk:Gov/en/Portal:R&D/Innovations:Structured Data - Revision history