Re: objections to webmention

On 8 June 2016 at 16:50, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org> wrote:

>
>
> On June 8, 2016 4:53:53 AM PDT, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >On 8 June 2016 at 13:12, Ben <ben@thatmustbe.me> wrote:
> >
> >> > My recommendation at this point, is for this work to be a Note, and
> >> leave the door open for further standardization.
> >>
> >> Isn't that effectively saying you want it resolved outside of the
> >working
> >> group?
> >>
> >No no!
> >
> >I think it's good work, in general.  Im happy that it was done.  Ideal
> >way
> >is to resolve issues here.  It's slightly awkward with tantek having
> >boycotted the mailing list, but I dont give up hope!
> >
>
> The preferred place to discuss issues on a specific spec is github.    I
> opened an issue for you for this, to help encourage that, but then
> eventually closed it because you weren't using it.
>
> >Just not seeing why it should be REC, rather than Note, at this point.
> >
>
> Because it appears it will meet all the criteria for a Rec.    Otherwise
> it's like a 5th grade student being enrolled in the 2nd grade.    You seem
> to think it really still belongs in 2nd grade but it's already met the
> objective criteria for graduating 2nd and seems fairly likely to do the
> rest soon.
>
> >What I'd like to see is webmention having a mapping to linked data,
> >interoperate with that, and the millions of sites that use it
> >(including
> >facebook and google), and also to have its form encoded version, seems
> >to
> >be the best of all worlds.
> >
>
> Just because two systems use JSON-LD doesn't make them interoperable.
>
> Acting as if it does is the Semantic Web "handwaving" or "pixie dust" that
> some folks find offensive.   It's what creates the "RDF allergy".
>

Some folk may have an "RDF allergy", but if so I suggest that is minority.
I was at one time an RDF skeptic.  The mindset of an RDF skeptic is that it
is a big time investment, and it's unclear that the pay off is worth it.
Actually once you actually start using it (few people do) the pay off is
really worth it.  Im part of the indieweb community, and I've hit all the
walls there, you need something more powerful to start to scale, and RDF
works.  What is needed for the indieweb community is an easy path to get
started, then a smooth upgrade path for those that want advanced features.

But anyway point is that all the linked data standards are
deterministically translatable from one to the other without out of band
knowledge.  Out of band knowledge is a problem, and objectionable, when it
can be avoided.


>
> There is adoption for ogp and schema.org in part because they're a whole
> lot more constrained than just using RDF.  The other constraints are
> necessary to provide interop.
>

This is speculation.  The fact is that these are significant deployments of
linked data, and they are not alone.

What is the deployment of webmention?  What is the deployment without
withknown -- under 100?  I keep asking for statistics on this.  I will
assume silence to mean that webmention's deployment to be insignificant.
This has to be factored into the overall evaluation.


>
> If you can show a plausible way to provide them for webmention, then I'll
> be intrigued.    I've thought about it a lot and don't think it's possible.
>

Im not sure what you're asking, but mapping webmention to linked data is
possible, isnt it?

In turtle:

<>
  <http://www.w3.org/ns/webmention#source>  <alice> ;
  <http://www.w3.org/ns/webmention#target> <bob> .

In JSON-LD something like

{
  @context : "http://www.w3.org/ns/webmention",
  "source": "https://waterpigs.example/post-by-barnaby",
  "target": "https://aaronpk.example/post-by-aaron"
}

This is the definitive way to do this using w3c standards.  These mappings,
at a minimum, should be explicit.


>
>     - Sandro
>
> >
> >
> >> On Jun 8, 2016 6:59 AM, "Melvin Carvalho" <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 8 June 2016 at 11:28, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 4 June 2016 at 02:02, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On 06/03/2016 07:15 AM, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I've attempted to communicate for the last year, on irc and in
> >aarons
> >>>>> github area, but its sometimes been not an optimal use of time.
> >So I'd
> >>>>> like to formulate my objections to webmention here, for further
> >review,
> >>>>> with hopefully some possible solutions.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hi Melvin,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You've caught me at an excellent time to write a detailed reply --
> >I'm
> >>>>> on the plane to the F2F meeting.  This is just the right kind of
> >work for
> >>>>> this situation.  Hopefully this reply will make everything more
> >clear.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It looks to me like your objections here are based on your design
> >>>>> sense, your general sense of what good designs look like, rather
> >than on
> >>>>> specific concerns about use cases that can be addressed with one
> >design
> >>>>> versus another.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In the most recent previous discussion on this topic, at
> >>>>> https://github.com/aaronpk/webmention/issues/39, I repeatedly
> >asked
> >>>>> you to provide specific use cases, to explain how developers/users
> >would be
> >>>>> affected by some change you're proposing.    I haven't seen an
> >answer.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Perhaps you thought I was just doing that as way of dismissing
> >you, of
> >>>>> giving you busy work?    That's not the case.    I was doing it
> >because by
> >>>>> arguing from uses cases, a group has a reasonable chance of
> >reaching
> >>>>> consensus.  Arguing from design sense pretty much never leads to
> >>>>> consensus.   It's a bit like the difference between science and
> >religion.
> >>>>> With the scientific method, disagreements can usually be settled
> >by
> >>>>> replicating experiments and developing new ones.   Not so much
> >with
> >>>>> religion.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So, again, I'll say if you want to persuade the group of anything,
> >I
> >>>>> think you're going to have to lay out a use case.    I suggest
> >taking some
> >>>>> part of one of the agreed-upon users stories and show how the CR
> >version of
> >>>>> Webmention doesn't work very well but some alternate version
> >you're
> >>>>> proposing does.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Personally, I don't think you'll be able to do this.  I've been
> >>>>> thinking about this space, a lot, for years, and I don't see the
> >issues
> >>>>> you're raising as the kind of issues that could lead to material
> >use
> >>>>> cases.   But you're welcome to try.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> A key question is what you're trying to do here.    If you want to
> >>>>> improve Webmention, that's probably the way to do it.   If you
> >just want to
> >>>>> be a pain to the WG, you could raise a formal objection.   (I'm
> >not going
> >>>>> to consider this "objection" a "formal objection" unless you
> >specifically
> >>>>> use that phrase.)  But unless you can be more clear in the way I
> >suggest
> >>>>> above, I don't think that'll do anyone any good.   Normally a
> >Formal
> >>>>> Objection is used to make a Working Group spend some time
> >seriously
> >>>>> reconsidering some decision it made.   But I don't see a decision
> >the WG
> >>>>> has made around Webmention that it might change during a
> >reconsideration,
> >>>>> unless some new information was presented.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks for responding to my concerns.
> >>>>
> >>>> I was glad to learn that I am not the only person in the WG that
> >has
> >>>> reservations on this work.
> >>>>
> >>>> I dont feel the concerns have been addressed, other than the hand
> >>>> waiving, "I dont find that compelling" argument, which can be said
> >about
> >>>> anything.  I find this dismissive, and in this group, unfortunately
> >I am
> >>>> left with the feeling of relatively little recourse.
> >>>>
> >>>> I will leave this thread open a while to gather feedback and I
> >think the
> >>>> advice is to document exactly what the concerns are and put them in
> >a
> >>>> document, so they can be understood.  Which I have begun to do.
> >Much will
> >>>> depend on how much time I have to do this.
> >>>>
> >>>> So, I think the issue here is that there are a number of people in
> >this
> >>>> group.  Some are coding regularly in this space, and some are
> >familiar with
> >>>> existing W3C standards that solve this problem, but few are both.
> >So
> >>>> perhaps that can also be documented.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> To clarify this is not a "formal" objection, because:
> >>>
> >>> 1 It would need to be clearly documented
> >>> 2 It would need to be worthy of the attention of a wider audience
> >>> (director + w3c member) -- that's not clear to me at this point
> >>> 3 It would need fail to be resolved in the WG (I think we still have
> >>> space to do that)
> >>>
> >>> I dont think 1/2/3 are currently met at this time.  So I will try
> >and
> >>> build out (1) because I think there are legitimate concerns around
> >interop
> >>>
> >>> My recommendation at this point, is for this work to be a Note, and
> >leave
> >>> the door open for further standardization.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Another thing you could do is help move forward one of the
> >alternatives
> >>>>> to Webmention.    Rhiaro mentioned in #39 how activitypub might be
> >just
> >>>>> what you want, and I understand there are several other possible
> >directions
> >>>>> one could go.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> A few more comments below, but the important part of my reply here
> >is
> >>>>> done.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 1. Universality
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Axiom 0 of the webstates that we should use URIs to name things.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I assume you're referring to TimBL's DesignIssues/Axioms document?
> >>>>> That was written 20 years ago and reflects only one person's
> >opinion.   The
> >>>>> W3C Recommendation in this space, a few years later, which
> >resulted from
> >>>>> extensive discussion among TimBL, the appointed and elected
> >members of TAG,
> >>>>> and many members of the public, was AWWW.     I think you'll find
> >AWWW
> >>>>> includes a rather more restrictive and realistic version of this
> >axiom:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 2.1. Benefits of URIs
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The choice of syntax for global identifiers is somewhat arbitrary;
> >it
> >>>>> is their global scope that is important. The Uniform Resource
> >>>>> Identifier, [URI <https://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#URI>], has been
> >>>>> successfully deployed since the creation of the Web. There are
> >substantial
> >>>>> benefits to participating in the existing network of URIs,
> >including
> >>>>> linking, bookmarking, caching, and indexing by search engines, and
> >there
> >>>>> are substantial costs to creating a new identification system that
> >has the
> >>>>> same properties as URIs.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Good practice: Identify with URIs
> >>>>>
> >>>>> To benefit from and increase the value of the World Wide Web,
> >agents
> >>>>> should provide URIs as identifiers for resources.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> A resource should have an associated URI if another party might
> >>>>> reasonably want to create a hypertext link to it, make or refute
> >assertions
> >>>>> about it, retrieve or cache a representation of it, include all or
> >part of
> >>>>> it by reference into another representation, annotate it, or
> >perform other
> >>>>> operations on it. Software developers should expect that sharing
> >URIs
> >>>>> across applications will be useful, even if that utility is not
> >initially
> >>>>> evident. The TAG finding "URIs, Addressability, and the use of
> >HTTP
> >>>>> GET and POST <http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/whenToUseGet.html>"
> >discusses
> >>>>> additional benefits and considerations of URI addressability.
> >>>>> From https://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/
> ><https://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I think it's pretty hard to argue that the strings "source" and
> >>>>> "target" in Webmention posts should be URIs based on this advice.
> > For the
> >>>>> cases where one would want them to be URIs, a standard mapping is
> >>>>> provided.  You could view Webmention as using URIs for this, but
> >during the
> >>>>> POST, the namespace is left implicit.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Most standards I know at the W3C adhere to this,
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Does HTML?   Does CSS?   Do any of the HTML5 APIs?    Can you name
> >a
> >>>>> non-RDF spec that does?      Probably best to stay away from XML
> >specs,
> >>>>> since their use of URIs is highly contentious.   (As I understand
> >it, XML
> >>>>> only uses URIs as web addresses and unique identifiers, not to
> >name
> >>>>> things.   The difference is perhaps pedantic, but it's clear XML
> >specs
> >>>>> don't align with the Linked Data Principles, which I think TimBL
> >would
> >>>>> agree subsumes Axiom 0 in his own personal design sense.)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Probably not worth the time to go through this, but if I had to
> >guess,
> >>>>> I'd say by count 10% of W3C specs adhere to this (my groups like
> >RDF, OWL,
> >>>>> and RIF tended to produce a dozen specs at a time) and by user
> >base, 0.001%
> >>>>> of the W3C specs adhere to this.   The weight of success is not on
> >the side
> >>>>> of this axiom, so it's not going to convince anyone.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> webmention does not use URIs for the source and target parameters.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> URIs can be derived out of band by reading the spec and using a
> >prefix,
> >>>>> but this is not ideal.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Here's where, if you want to convince anyone, you have to tell a
> >story
> >>>>> about something that's important and significantly easier with
> >source and
> >>>>> target being URIs on the wire.   I just don't see it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 2. Using form encoded messaging for the social web
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Views on this differ, but IMHO it's very clear that messaging over
> >the
> >>>>> social web according to our charter should be in JSON.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The chairs and I have addressed the charter issue elsewhere.
> >Please
> >>>>> keep charter discussions in separate threads, since they involve
> >different
> >>>>> people and are reviewed differently.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Webmention doesnt do this.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> To the extent that it's "just a signaling protocol" I suppose you
> >could
> >>>>> "get away with it".  But I dont think webmention is by any means
> >just a
> >>>>> signaling protocol.  It's an attempt to standardize messaging on
> >the social
> >>>>> web.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> How can you claim Webmention is "an attempt to standardize
> >messaging"?
> >>>>>   I don't see that in the spec.  I haven't heard that from the WG.
> >  I
> >>>>> haven't heard that from the implementors.   I haven't heard that
> >from the
> >>>>> users.   Where are you getting that?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I do, however, see how it could be *used* as part of a general
> >>>>> messaging protocol:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 1. System "Alice" wants to send system "Bob" some message M1
> >>>>> 2. Alice puts M1 on the web at URL U1, being sure to include some
> >>>>> metadata the links to Bob.    At a minimum, something like "To:
> >Bob" (where
> >>>>> Bob is a URL)
> >>>>> 3. Alice does the Webmention thing, "mentioning" U1 to Bob
> >>>>> 4. Bob gets the mention, dereferences U1, reads M1
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So, in this sense, Webmention could be a key part of a web
> >messaging
> >>>>> protocol.   It's has one advantage over the much simpler approach
> >of "Alice
> >>>>> POSTS M1 to Bob", namely that Alice is confirmed as the sender.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> But:
> >>>>> - This isn't what Webmention was designed for; it's not clear
> >anyone
> >>>>> actually wants to use it for this.
> >>>>> - If you do this, the actual message can be JSON or whatever Alice
> >>>>> wants.   The *message* is M1, published at U1, *not* the
> >form-encoded
> >>>>> Webmention that was posted to Bob.
> >>>>> - If you want to do this, consider instead just POSTing M1 to Bob
> >using
> >>>>> some kind of authentication for Alice (eg OpenID Connect or
> >WebID-TLS)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So, I see no argument here against the current design of
> >Webmention.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Possible Solutions
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 1. Support JSON messaging -- the W3C has innovated in this area
> >with
> >>>>> some success
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 2. If we want to pass around messages using forms we should make
> >the
> >>>>> general case robust, scalable, extensible, interoperable and
> >universal, and
> >>>>> have webmention be an instance of such a system.  That's possibly
> >outside
> >>>>> the scope and timing of this WG, I dont know.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I'm not sure what those are solutions to, but they're probably not
> >the
> >>>>> problems Webmention is intended to solve.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Im still being guided as to the difference between the REC and
> >Note
> >>>>> tracks, but I'll put the suggestion out there to move webmention
> >to a note,
> >>>>> or move it back from CR.  I'm not an expert on this aspect of W3C
> >process,
> >>>>> but I'd like to raise these concerns to a wider audience, in
> >particular, to
> >>>>> folks outside the indieweb community.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If you want people to pay attention to these concerns, either
> >inside or
> >>>>> outside the WG, I think you're going to have to develop a simple
> >story
> >>>>> about a problem that's solved with your modified Webmention and
> >not solved
> >>>>> with Webmention.   Or a story about how Webmention being adopted
> >would do
> >>>>> real harm to someone.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Frankly, I think you can find much better uses for your time if
> >you
> >>>>> want to work in this space, eg helping with activitypub.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>         -- Sandro
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
>
>