Re: objections to webmention

On 11 June 2016 at 18:26, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org> wrote:

> Replying because you made an attempt at telling a story, like I suggested,
> and I wanted to give feedback on how to make it an applicable/useful
> story.   Also, because you seemed to have missed one of my emails (about
> straw arguments) and because you raise a new issue about a possible
> ambiguity in the spec.
>
>
> On June 11, 2016 8:07:47 AM PDT, Melvin Carvalho
> <melvincarvalho@gmail.com> <melvincarvalho@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On 9 June 2016 at 17:45, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org> <sandro@w3.org>
> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Melvin, I believe you're trying to be helpful, and I keep feeling
> >like
> >> we're close enough to a mutual understanding that I get tempted into
> >one
> >> more message, but my confidence that this discussion is a good use of
> >time
> >> is approaching zero. I suggest we agree to disagree, and drop it,
> >unless
> >> this message is some magical breakthrough.
> >>
> >> Last attempt below...
> >>
> >> On June 9, 2016 5:09:30 AM PDT, Melvin Carvalho
> ><melvincarvalho@gmail.com> <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >On 8 June 2016 at 16:50, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org> <sandro@w3.org>
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> On June 8, 2016 4:53:53 AM PDT, Melvin Carvalho
> >> ><melvincarvalho@gmail.com> <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >On 8 June 2016 at 13:12, Ben <ben@thatmustbe.me>
> <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.
> >>
> >> One question is how much you need to invest before there's payoff.
> >I
> >> think the RDF allergy comes from people investing some work and
> >coming to
> >> the conclusion it's a bad use of time. Arguably if they'd just
> >spent a
> >> few more weeks it would have started to pay off, but it's hard to
> >know for
> >> sure.
> >>
> >> Since you keep trying to argue from authority and personal judgement,
> >you
> >> might consider deferring to mine. I have some experience in this
> >area.
> >>
> >
> >Having worked with you for a while, I highly rate your analytic
> >ability,
> >and the way you can take a problem, get to the heart of the matter, and
> >reframe it. You also have good in depth knowledge in a number of
> >areas.
> >But being a regular coder and user of these systems, on an hourly basis
> >I
> >think gives further insights that are not easy to communicate over
> >email.
> >At this point my comments are high level.
>
> As I've said over and over again, high level comments turn out not to be
> useful. What's useful is telling stories about what you're trying to do and
> what happens.
>
> >
> >
> >>
> >> 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.
> >>
> >> If you're going to make a claim like this and be useful, you need to
> >tell
> >> a true story about a wall you hit that you needed RDF to get past.
> >>
> >> What is needed for the indieweb community is an easy path to
> >>
> >
> >Let's see if this works.
>
> Thank you! (Although, see below, this story has no stated relation to the
> webmention spec.)
>
> > My first use case was social. As part of the
> >indieweb community I wanted to add friends to my roster.
>
> That could mean a couple different things. Do you mean like adding them to
> the public list of people you follow?
>
> I don't see how webmention would be helpful for that. How were you using
> it in this scenario? I can see how it would be great for letting people
> know you're following them, which was a thing cimba needed. Did you try
> that?
>
>
> > To may
> >complete
> >amazement there wasnt a way to do this. But a hope to expand the
> >concept
> >of "blogrolls". At this point I realized indieweb was a microblogging
> >system, not a social system.
>
> That might just be a terminology mismatch. One sometimes needs to be a bit
> multilingual when communities are coming together.
>
> > I tried to develop things in this line
> >but
> >Tantek pushed back saying it was 'not a priority'.
>
> Fortunately, in IWC, Tantek is a facilitator and resource, not your boss.
> You get to return the pushback and say, well, it's what I want to work on
> for my own site. I'd be surprised if he didn't say, okay then, let's see
> what you can do.
>
> In this Working Group, Tantek as co-chair has a responsibility to help
> keep things on track, but I don't think that's what you're talking about
> here.
>
> > How can a social
> >system
> >not have friending.
>
> I know you mean that rhetorically, but you might look into it a bit more.
> IWC clearly has produced a working social system, so how DOES it do that
> without friending?
>
> > So I found this was much easier to do in RDF and
> >Solid.
>
> Fine. Not sure what this tells us about webmention.
>
> > That's just one example of many. I hope it does not because
> >the
> >focus of this thread, though.
>
> The way to make this thread useful in improving webmention is exactly to
> have the thread focus on a story about what happened when you tried to use
> the spec.
>
> I appreciate the step in that direction, but I couldn't find the
> webmention use in this story.
>
>
> >
> >
> >> >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.
> >> >
> >>
> >> No, it doesn't. Same straw argument as on the other thread, plus
> >> ignoring my point about how bad it is when your number of adopters
> >falls.
> >>
> >
> >OK, so you think adoption doesnt need to be factored in and I do.
>
> That's not at all what I said. I'm saying you need to consider the people
> currently adopting webmention, and you're saying they're irrelevant
> compared to some other group of people, like the potential future adopters.
>
> > I
> >think
> >that's a reasonable thing to disagree on. You keep calling straw man
> >but
> >when I ask you why, you dont respond.
>
> Actually, I did.   Quoting from
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-socialweb/2016Jun/0034.html
>
> >I am trying to demonstrate why the bottom up decentralized approach
> >works.
> >Why do you think that is a straw [man?] argument?
>
> Because even if the whole Semantic Web vision was entirely adopted, and every Web Page was entirely backed by visible RDF using a wide range of vocabularies that were all maximally mapped to each other in machine processible ways providing interoperability, ... Even if all if that was true, it would still be prefectly reasonable for webmention to say that's overkill and we'll just use form encoding with our two privately named properties.
>
>
> Did you miss that email?
>

Sorry, yes I missed that one.  Let me just say that I separated that into
another thread, without referring to webmention at all.  But I'll continue
that there.  I retract previous comment about you not replying with sincere
apologies.


>
>
>
> > It's not a good way to
> >communicate,
> >frankly.
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> 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%3E>
> http://www.w3.org/ns/webmention#source>; <alice> ;
> >> > < <http://www.w3.org/ns/webmention#target%3E>
> http://www.w3.org/ns/webmention#target>; <bob> .
> >> >
> >> >In JSON-LD something like
> >> >
> >> >{
> >> > @context : " <http://www.w3.org/ns/webmention%22>
> http://www.w3.org/ns/webmention";,
> >> > "source": "https://waterpigs.example/post-by-barnaby"
> <https://waterpigs.example/post-by-barnaby>,
> >> > "target": "https://aaronpk.example/post-by-aaron"
> <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.
> >>
> >> They are.
> >> <https://www.w3.org/TR/webmention/#uris-for-form-encoded-properties>
> https://www.w3.org/TR/webmention/#uris-for-form-encoded-properties
> >>
> >> Again, please don't bother replying unless you have some new
> >information.
> >>
> >
> >Again we disagree. I said there should be an *explicit* mapping from
> >webmention to a linked data format, so that implementors know what to
> >do.
> >
> >In fact you are implying that if you prefix source and target in form
> >encoded variables with a namespace it becomes isomorphic with a linked
> >data
> >serialization. It doesn't does it? This is under specified.
>
> I don't see the ambiguity. When one person sees ambiguity that another
> does not, that's usually best clarified with a test case. Like show the
> bytes in the two different ways of doing it and ask the WG which one is
> intended.
>
> But do that on github, as a new github issue about that specific point,
> otherwise (1) people might not see it because this email thread has gotten
> absurd, and (2) there's no accountability under W3C process.
>

I think this is the crux of the issue.

Well as you know Linked data is based on triples.  And webmention is
doubles.

That leads to some unspecified questions?

How do you make the triples into doubles.  Do you add []?  or maybe <>?  []
I suspect.  But what then happens when the webmention is processed and
lives in a document.

How do you make the predicate from a string into a URI -- this is the part
that is covered.

How do you deal with the object string?  Do you just translate it into
anyURI?  I suspect not.  It's tied to document in wording.

So im asking to write this out so people know how to implement it and it's
under specified.  An example or a test case or anything like that I think
is needed.


>
> -- Sandro
>
>
> >
> >
> >>
> >> - Sandro
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> - Sandro
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> On Jun 8, 2016 6:59 AM, "Melvin Carvalho"
> >> ><melvincarvalho@gmail.com> <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> On 8 June 2016 at 11:28, Melvin Carvalho
> >> ><melvincarvalho@gmail.com> <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
> >> >> >>> wrote:
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>> On 4 June 2016 at 02:02, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
> <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>
> 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%3E>
> 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%3E%22>
> 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/
> >> >> >< <https://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/%3E>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
> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >>
> >>
>