- From: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2021 17:12:29 +0200
- To: Nathan Rixham <nathan@webr3.org>
- Cc: Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>, Read-Write-Web <public-rww@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAKaEYhJx+dVtx0MVQ=j6_7Tsg0PCPxbO+Fti6eHWPsSv+bBDTw@mail.gmail.com>
On Sun, 25 Jul 2021 at 16:50, Nathan Rixham <nathan@webr3.org> wrote: > On Sun, Jul 25, 2021 at 3:40 PM Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> So, I think there are basically different eco systems. DID and WebID >> etc. In theory, they have similar routes, and in theory can interoperate. >> But in reality they are two separate things. >> >> For example, try adding a did: into a WebID document while complying to >> both specs. I dont think you can do it >> >> So that leaves the question as where things stand with the standards >> based approach to the : read-write web / social web / identity / >> credentials etc. >> >> Because there's more than just one standards based approach >> > > Yup > > >> IMO the thing people like alot about did: is that it's in JSON. But it >> doesnt easily include HTTP URIs which still have a significant network >> effect (granted most dont use webid). >> > > JSON w/ URIs has seemed obvious for a decade or more. > > In a sense it's sad that this field has been encumbered with rdf and it's > legacy baggage harking right back to xml for so long, because if it wasn't, > we'd arguably be a decade further along and just have (a standardized) JSON > w/ URIs for 95%+ of common web / web data needs. > Yes, if you said to any web developer in the world, "JSON with URLs", they'd get it immediately Everything else can be layered on top > > > >> There's definitely value at the intersection of these two diverged >> standards. >> > > +1, value is often found at the intersection > >
Received on Sunday, 25 July 2021 15:12:53 UTC