Browser Ontology - terminology and term relations

[York-Earwaker]

A standard set of terms and relations for browser technology. Does this already exist? Device independent capability terms and concerns. Systems engineering, software engineering, systems of systems SoS, internet of things IoT, digital twin, human digital twin, …

There are many standards that provide the underlying technology specifications but is there an existing standard / specification for a standard set of terms for browser capability.

To consider. The line between app and browser seems somewhat arbitrary. App arguably a sub set of browser. Both app and browser are client side applications. So a browser ontology standard might also contain as parallel working group app ontology standard as a sub set of the browser ontology. Would it be the same all inclusive standard or might a separate app standard be required. Might it be an issue of device specific language which appears somewhat distinct but in reality are more similar than not. What is the overlap and delta if any. Set theoretically to what extent are app and browser the same.

See discussion here

HTTP Request Status - Reference Implementation

Greater control for the client from the server. Give more control of application to client side application user from server side application owner/originator. See discussion here Revising the HTTP protocol to balance client side application user requirements will also help toward a proper Services Oriented Architecture SOA. It would help in the user select destination of services required. That is the domain and resource to provide the service required. Instead of relying solely on the URL…

Also here

Browser Profile Settings - SOcial LInked Data SOLID

Overview Every browser would have identical minimal standard behaviour on uploading setting from SOLID data pod. One ring to rule them all and in the data pod bind them Browser Profile Settings - SOcial LInked Data SOLID Browser configuration Multiple browser profiles for different user pseudonyms Multiple browser profiles for different personas Multiple browser profiles for different use cases The same profile for all browsers Different profiles for different dowsers Switch profiles …

Also here

Data privacy - SOLID SOcial Linked Data browser

Brave with SOLID SOcial Linked Data browser capability. This feature would provide internet data privacy as a means of accessing and viewing personal data. Consider which of the CRUD operations to support for SOLID data sets. Systems wide view of internet ecosystem. OSI seven layer model. Not that the Brave browser should incorporate the entirety to the OSI model. See discussion here and here Legal issues in regard to age of consent and handover from parent the child. Also likely a gradate…

Also here

Security - DNS Blacklists and Whitelists

For fine grained management of internet domains and subdomains to block or allow access to. Domain names and resource indicators / locators. Use of SOcial Linked Data SOLID for single data source to configure all browsers. This would make the solution OS independent. Might be used in tandem with hosts file 127.0.0.1 loopback. The hosts file localhost loopback is a non optimal solution to the issue of control of domains for inclusion in a blacklist and has no whitelist capability. It is also no…

Also here

Security - Hosts file - localhost 127.0.0.1 loopback as Blacklist

Use hosts file localhost 127.0.0.1 loopback as blacklist Top level domain blocks access to all subdomains. Network administrator or machine OS administrator to make changes to hosts file. CSO responsibility in enterprise. Household control for access per user. Parental control for different children of different ages. Allows for enterprise wide tailoring of specific work and access to necessary sites on a per user basis. Update hosts file content from SCO office direct reports. Would work o…

The working group might consider structuring the 'browser/app ontology in a similar fashion to the REA ontology. That is using a structured approach to encapsulate related sets of stakeholder concerns as views. Mapping model elements in one viewpoint to model elements in other viewpoints.

Candidate views might include, similar to REA, a temporal view to include policy (enterprise) compliance (enterprise) regulation (gov) oversight (gov) directive legal and so on . Another view might be a safeguarding view including risk (person, enterprise) privacy (personal digital twin) caring (parent, child, …, ) . Another might be an epistemic view including authority controls (see Wikipedia) education (primary, secondary, tertiary, ) empirical evidence () fake news (see UN initiatives) misinformation/disinformation and so on. The epistemic view is necessarily related to both the temporal view and safeguarding view. Maybe, also similar to REA, a workflow view including use cases like work (BMM) economic exchange (person, enterprise, BIAN, FIBO, REA, …) entertainment (television, film, news, social media, ) adult services (dating, gambling, porn, ) illicit/criminal (drugs, fencing or art & antiquities , … ). The workflow view necessarily related to the temporal view and safeguarding view and to the epistemic view in some cases. Possibly other views.

Consider using meta architecture standard ISO 42010 and tailoring architecture realisation UAF as necessary to aid in structuring ontology. Consider use of ISO 42020 and ISO 42030. And relation to ISO 402xx and ISO 405xx .

Rationale
To enable user control
To enable safeguards for human digital engagement
To enable better browser technology
To provide standard terms for browser capability and use
To reduce vendor browser lock in
To enable standard device independent capability
To enable discussion debate with a vendor neutral language
To enable gap analysis with vendor products
To enable strategic analysis (OSGM, PEST, SWOT, … )
To enable standard language for regulatory purposes
To enable standard language for oversight purposes
To enable standard language for policy purposes
To enable standard language for compliance purposes
To enable standard language for risk purposes
To enable standard language for legal purposes
…

Requirements
Exchangeability
Interoperability
Understandability
…

Thought Leaders
Tim Berners Lee
William McCarthy

Organisations
BIAN, Banking Industry Architecture Network, https://bian.org/
IETF, Internet Engineering Task Force,
ISO, https://www.iso.org/committee/45020/x/catalogue/
OMG, Object Management Group,
WPF, World Privacy Forum, https://www.worldprivacyforum.org/
W3C, World Wide Web Consortium,

References
Standards
Normative
BIAN Artefacts, BIAN, <inclusive inter alia; services landscape, data types, classes, … , > https://bian.org/deliverables/bian-artefacts/
BMM, Business Motivation Model, OMG,
FIBO, Financial Industry Business Ontology, OMG <also related omg financial working group standards, >
REA, Resource Event Actor, https://www.williamemccarthy.com/ <economic exchange, accounting, >
REST,
Web Services Architecture, W3C,
UAF,

Informative
Systems and software engineering — Architecture description
ISO/IEC/IEEE 42010, http://www.iso-architecture.org/ieee-1471/
HTTP
HTML
JavaScript
JSON
CSS
XML
OWL
RDF
…

[York-Earwaker]

The state of the technological art and context for use of the internet has changed radically since its inception.

In the beginning the user and originator were one and the same. That is the user/originator was also the http server administrator and ‘webmaster’. This is no longer the case.

An individual home content originator does so usually through a social media channel or blogging/website channel. An individual content originator seldom manages application software or platform infrastructure. A corporate content originator might also manage application software or platform infrastructure.

The main interaction mechanism for an individual home content creator is the web browser/phone app. These are both client applications. The vast majority of users are client side not server side.

More control for the client side home user/originator to balance server side corporate owner/originator or corporate XaaS service provider.

A browser ontology would help highlight the home user client side use cases over and above the corporate server side use case.

A browser ontology is important also for corporate client side use cases. But these should not take priority over home user client side use cases. The corporate client side has a small army of technology specialists to aid in adherence to corporate policy and compliance. The home client side has no backup technology corporate IT division to help in adherence of home policy and compliance.

That is corporates client sides are usually centrally managed by professionals technologists. Home client sides are usually not managed at all or at best by amateur tech enthusiasts. The home user has no depth of technology capability to call upon as the corporate has. Most home client side users are naïve.

This has a relation to the technology standards that were created in the original context of academic knowledge sharing with the user/originator at CERN. This is not the context for practically any user/originator in the current context of client side web browser/phone app use.

There are necessarily relations with the standards bodies like the IETF and W3C and others. Would the internets technology standards have been designed/architected in same way given the current use context? Likely not.

Having arrived at the current context in regard to the entirety of the internet standards protocols and other technology baggage to quote the old Irish saying, ‘You know, if I were you, I wouldn’t start from here.’

So there is a strong case to reconsider the limitations for the home client side user of the current internet context like the standards upon which the internet rests. It may not be in the interests of corporates to shift the focus. Excepting that most of the people who work for corporates when they get home are naïve home client side users.

A browser ontology would highlight the naïve home user client side use cases. To help rebalance interactions between users and providers.

One of the ways to rebalance things away from providers toward user consumers is to look again at the underlying technology standards which were created in a past context and may not be fit for purpose for the current context.

For example increased client side control over completing, or executing, http requests prompted by html hyperlinks served in html pages or like pages by providers. The original naïve context at CERN being no one would want to embed hyperlinks in html pages to hostile server side resources that might compromise the user. Same problem with hypertext links in emails. Or client side executable code or cookies and so on.

A vendor independent web browser/phone app ontology would help in shedding light on the current state context and highlight a path the next state context.

A good analogy are the route finder spider diagrams for the London buses by TFL. Many of the technology protocols and standards are part of the traffic routing in the information journey to the web browser information display stop destination. The protocols and standards might be reconsidered from the viewpoint of the concerns of the web browser client side home traveller over the information highway and side streets and back allies of the internet systems architecture.

P.S. As an aside the spider diagrams are a useful tool for data management and governance too. Particularly in relation of information end points like reports, say a P&L report. Documenting data provenance and ownership and ingress and egress and knowledge composition into report information. The spider diagram showing the route of multiple data flows into the information content being the central ‘stop’ point. From an System of Systems SoS perspective this is part of a nested network view of enterprise information flow.

See also
​ Website Blocking - Ad Blocking with Filter list not fit for purpose