Feedback for 'decentralisation' chapter

[x] Write an intro for the chapter. What are you setting out to do? Why? How does it fit into the bigger picture of the whole thesis?
[x] What's the deal with the <hr/s>s?
[x] Editorial notes in https://github.com/csarven/lr-thesis/pull/12
See also: https://github.com/csarven/lr-thesis/issues/11

Information Society

[x] "information society" definition - citation needed
[x] "inherently decentralised - with the exception of DNS" - citation needed
[x] "Information control tends to happen through system designs that are inherently centralised." - citation needed
[x] "For instance, an individual can expect to participate in exchanging knowledge and goods autonomously." <- what? in what context? why does anyone expect this?
[x] "and interact with participants and information" -> who are participants? The public? Other researchers? Participants in what?
[x] Last paragraph about what researchers can do with access to the Web is pie in the sky. There are way to many barriers to just flip a switch and have a 'global commons'. Should you be presenting this as an idealised view? Maybe "technologically speaking" this could be the case.
[x] Conclusion / articulate point / summarise. What are you trying to tell us with this section exactly?

Control Yourself

[x] Intro - this section introduces the concept of decentralisation on the Web, and the existing technologies that make it possible... etc.
[x] Add a (cited) definition of decentralisation. There are loads; I used a Harry Halpin one.
[x] Section is generally mixed up, jumping between saying Web is too centralised and that Web can solve scholarly comm. through decentralisation. I think you need to make two points:
- about need to re-decentralise the Web.
- why doing so benefits scholarly communication.
- Point out the situation is complicated; we need to improve decentralisation AND take further steps to apply it to scientific publishing.
[x] "In a fully decentralised setting, each source is filterless and responsible for its own quality and reputation, while others are free to selectively (dis-)trust certain sources using any mechanism they desire." <- this is absolutely not making a positive case for decentralisation.
[x] "which has the potential to engage more people sooner" <- why is sooner better?
[x] "If we want to strengthen the decentralised nature of the Web again, we need to develop technologies to simplify the decentralised authoring, management, exploration, and search of Web content." <- this paragraph does not belong here. Maybe earlier?
[x] "Any third-party involvement is fundamentally subject to conflict with that notion." <- I ~call bullshit~ thoroughly dispute the truth of this assertion.
[x] "information silos" - citation
[x] "data" and "applications" bullets - define what these are?
[x] "applications for the status quo" <- what are these? what do you mean? citation?
[x] "Hence, we strive towards neutrality and democratisation of scholarly knowledge on all levels of access for humans and machines; and decentralisation and decoupling of data and applications while addressing some of the infrastructure limitations and needs in order to conduct genuine scholarly communication on the Web." <- this is a bit manifesto. Is it meant to be a statement of intent for the chapter/thesis?
[x] Ultimately, I read all that, and I don't really know what the point of that section was or what I learnt from it. Can you sum it up?

Challenges..

[x] Why is there a bunch of scholarly ecosystem stuff in the middle of the decentralisation chapter? Herbert theory should be somewhere else.
[x] Yeah most of this just needs moving. Tramp stuff needs to go somewhere with why centralisation is bad. Maybe the previous (control yourself) section.
[x] Conclusion of Tramp and Sambra stuff here is that LD tech is good for this. Belongs in next (standards) section?
[x] "While there are plethora of architecturally significant requirements that would be necessary to design a system that is sociotechnical in nature, meanwhile encouraging autonomous and interoperable participation on the open Web, we focus on non-functional and functional requirements in this thesis." <- what does this mean?!?!
[x] Maybe your requirements bullets should go in the conclusion of this chapter, presented as derived from the standards you describe as background literature.

Standards

[x] Write introduction.
[x] "Standards for decentralised Web" is way too generic; maybe "interoperable applications"?
[x] "However, Ted Nelson disputes this design choice with respect to the original Hypertext design." <- good for Ted, but I don't think this is relevant or useful here.
[ ] Subheadings for each standard.
[x] Feels like a weird amount of detail on HTTP, but you do you.
[x] "legally"...?
[x] Memento and WAC are mentioned in the Fedora paragraph, but not detailed yet.
[x] WA needs an LDP reference I think.
[x] Yes, re: "only annotation-protocol and maybe annotation-model should be here and the rest in structure-of-scholarly-communication?"
[x] "The design pattern for these Linked Data centric read-write architectures" <- these bullets are a good summary but why are they in the middle of the list?? Put them at the end..

Decentralised Storage

[x] I agree that flat is good, keep these sections separate (and potentially rename "standards..")
[x] Maybe move before standards section, and emphasise separation of storage vs. apps. Follows on from earlier stuff.
[x] Actually finish this section.

Universal Identity

[x] Write an intro - why is this relevant for scholarly comms? Tie into earlier chapter. Attribution, reputation, trust etc.
[x] Make the point somewhere that registering your own URI is an alternative to having identifiers assigned for you by a third party (like ORCID). Maybe as a lead in to WebID.
[x] The technologies described here really need listing as standards in their own sections, as with previous ones, I think.
[x] Desired qualities - frame as inferred from the prior list of existing stuff. Conclude with this.
[x] Make a subsection called 'multiple identifiers' for your WebID+ORCID stuff. ie. here I provide a real life example of multiple identifiers held by an academic researcher (myself) and how they can be linked and interact.

Authentication

[x] Maybe too much detail for Web of Trust?
[x] Cert stuff seems slightly overkill too. Those code dumps did not look good on my kindle.
[x] Not enough on OIDC though!

Authorization

[x] Something is missing here. Not sure what.

Persistence and Preservation

[x] Introduction: this section ties together identification and archiving (I think) making the connection to scholarly communication clear. Express that.

Implementing..

[x] "a Read-Write Linked Data Web" is overselling it. Maybe "Implementing Linked Research"?
[x] Maybe this needs spinning out into its own chapter. Especially as it ties in social and structure stuff too.
[x] Intro: in this section we demonstrate how the various standards described in this chapter can be pieced together into an application designed for researchers to particpate in the scholarly communication ecosystem.

Linked Specifciations..

[x] Extract into LDN chapter

Effects and Artefacts

[x] This is a good concluding section. Add stuff to make it super clear it's a concluding section for the whole chapter.

csarven / lr-thesis

Feedback for 'decentralisation' chapter #13