libera ideoj

The USDA standards for processed, packaged “Salisbury steak” require a minimum content of 65% meat, of which up to 25% can be pork, except if defatted beef or pork is used, the limit is 12% combined. No more than 30% may be fat. Meat byproducts are not permitted; however, beef heart meat is allowed. Extender (bread crumbs, flour, oat flakes, etc.) content is limited to 12%, except isolated soy protein at 6.8% is considered equivalent to 12% of the others.

Wikipedia, Salisbury steak.

I’ve been working at building augmented reality tech for a while. It’s so math heavy that getting the minimum viable product out the door is excruciating. So the project has stalled.

In the mean time, I’ve learned a little about lean. And I’ve come to realize that I’ve been building a solution to too many problems. Worst of all, I’ve been split between the problems of too many people. So it’s time to regroup. Figure out who matter, and what matters to them.

In the broadest sense, there are three groups in augmenting reality: the audience, the artists, and the patrons. Ultimately the driving force is the taste of the audience. We’ll only give our attention to the most beautiful and useful. But at the moment, the landscape is so sparse that the only projects that are seeing life are ones with good backing or a driven creator. The sponsors tend to be limiting their support to marketing efforts, movies and brands are hunting cool, there isn’t much sponsorship of abstract art or niche business tools. But the budgets of these sponsors are constrained by the domain of the possible. Artists who know the field are the best guides. Given the latitude, I think they’ll prefer to make sponsored projects with the best tools they can find.

So that’s where I want to go. I want to build the best tools an artist could wield. So what I need to do now is learn what sucks most about today’s tools. I need to know how projects are being built today, how they are designed, constructed, delivered and maintained. Would the most good from a better CAD, framework, toolkit or platform? What’s the stack of tools to make most beautiful augments? What’s the most flexible stack for getting a working solution turned around quickly?

David Recordon just let us know about a little strawman proposal he’s calling OpenID Connect. It’s not exactly perfect, but it’s a good jumping off point for the ideas that are shaping the next version of OpenID. And I love that he’s just throwing some ideas out there. It’s really in the original spirit of Request For Comments. There’s even code in there!

Most noticibly, the proposal guts most of the work in OpenID, replacing its discovery and security bits with LRDD and OAuth 2 respectively. LRDD is a rewrite of the discovery process used in OpenID 2 intended to be more modular and simpler. OAuth 2 is also a rewrite, but not of existing OpenID parts. Instead, it takes the OAuth concept and makes it easier for to write clients, among many other changes. But with OAuth 2, you can just use curl to get at APIs instead of having to dig into HTTP headers. Having OAuth 2 underneath OpenID should make it much easier to write clients that work with OpenIDs.

There are some other changes as well. OpenID currently lets you delegate your OpenID from any web address to any OpenID server. This is pretty much only used by early adopters who want vanity OpenIDs. That’s how I’ve got my OpenID set up today. But really it provides almost no benefit with the new disco process. And most people are using an insecure web address to delegate from, making them vulnerable to well known weaknesses in OpenID. The consesus is that all future OpenID versions will have to mandate TLS to keep things safe. If you’re enough of a power user to limit your vanity web address to HTTPS, you’ll have no trouble setting up your own OpenID Provider as well. So losing delegation is a non-issue.

But the OpenID Connect proposal has one change that I can’t talk myself into to supporting. It introduces a very simple User Information API that provides the basic personal information every site needs for registering an account. The problem is that we already have the Simple Registration Extension and Attribute Exchange. Instead of reusing the format of either, it introduces another new one.

Instead of inventing another new format for the next version of OpenID, I’d much rather it have a common way to embed existing formats like hCard, vCard, FOAF and PoCo. Like YADIS so long ago, we’ve got a bunch of competing tools for the same job. So let’s build a way for them to compete instead of one more extremely specialized solution. LID and DIX may no longer be with us, but OpenID incorporated their best ideas. Maybe we could call it Yet Another Personal Information Schema System? Nah.

I figure X/JRD gets us most of the way. Webfinger demos show that we can already do this stuff by just pointing around. But what’s missing is a way to inline the data so clients don’t have to keep making requests to get standard data. I imagine it could be as simple as:

{"user_id":"https://graph.fb.me/24400320",
 "url":"http://fb.me/davidrecordon",
 "link": [
   {"rel":"http://portablecontacts.net/spec/1.0#me",
    "href":"http://poco.fb.me/davidrecordon",
    "entity":
      {"entry":
        {"id": "692",
         "displayName": "David Recordon",
         "name":
           {"familyName": "David",
            "givenName": "Recordon" },
         "emails":
           [{"value": "recordond@gmail.com",
             "type": "home",
             "primary": "true" }],
          "photos":
            [{"value": "http://pics.fb.me/davidrecordon",
              "type": "home",
              "primary": "true" }]}}},
   {"rel":"describedby",
    "type": "application/rdf+n3",
    "href":"http://foaf.fb.me/daveman692",
    "entity": "You get the idea"}]}

Specifically, this would just be an OAuth API that provides X/JRD data to authorized clients. The only extension is to add an entity element to a resource descriptor link that includes the copy of the linked resource.

Two things complicate a solution like this. First, encoding is hard. There are four main kinds of data that people will want to embed, JSON, XML, binary data, and everything else. XML and JSON are special because they could concievably be included inline in XRD and JRD respectively. And really, that’s the ideal because no one likes having to pull out more than one parser just to deal with some data. I’m not entirely sure how to handle this, but formats that have both XML and JSON would be very nice. So Portable Contacts gets extra points here.

Binary and other data still make trouble though. What’s the best way to signal that you’re using Base64? Is it enough to just use the type of the link? Only some implementation experience will really tell. Singpolyma has done some fancy things with data: URIs, so that may be a starting point for binary.

The other issue is that web resources are more than just data. Good HTTP servers provide all sorts of metadata about when the resource was updated, how long to cache, &c. The simplest solution would be to just include the entire HTTP response as a string, but that’s certainly more trouble than it’s worth. CloudKit handles this by tacking on etag and last_modified values. Seems like a sound blueprint to me.

If OpenID adopts this sort of solution, it’s not just good for OpenID users. Everything else that uses XRD would benefit. If you want to have standard data publicly available, you could have that on your public XRD, while more sensitive things would be available to clients you trust. And maybe you could finally start doing more with your web identity than just log in.