Re: objections to webmention

I'll reply about the mapping issue, or someone else will, if you  raise it on github.

     -- Sandro


On June 11, 2016 10:11:32 AM PDT, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com> wrote:
>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
>> >> >> >>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>>

Received on Saturday, 11 June 2016 19:50:43 UTC