Re: objections to webmention

On 11 June 2016 at 21:50, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org> wrote:

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

Thanks, sandro.  Ill give this another try on github, when I get a few
cycles free.


>
>      -- 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
> >> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >>
>
>