Re: Towards Solid Lite

po 4. 12. 2023 v 18:28 odesílatel Abram Booth <abram@cos.io> napsal:

>
>
> On Sat, Oct 28, 2023 at 10:55 AM Vivien Kraus <vivien@planete-kraus.eu>
> wrote:
>
>> [...]
>>
>> Here is my idea for a complexity ladder:
>>
>> 1. Everything is either public or private to the “owner”. Authorization
>> is much simpler, authentication need not be decentralized.
>>
>> 2. Everything is only writable by the “owner”, but other people can
>> read specific parts with (read-only) WAC. Authentication is done with
>> HTTP signatures.
>>
>> 3. The DPoP-based authentication scheme is supported.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>
> this is a helpful framing... i wonder about a step 0 on the complexity
> ladder where everything is read-only -- a "solid zero" app (so to speak)
> would not have to reconcile updates, only produce rdf representations
> (whether based on a graph database, compute task, handwritten turtle files,
> or whatever) that could be served according to whichever auth approach from
> the rest of the ladder (tho each slightly simpler, because read-only)
>

Yes, that would be an extreme simplification.  The downside is that you
lose the element of interactive apps and an operating system.  I'm a bit
biased as im part of the read-write web movement, so I lean towards writing
being a small thing to add, and giving a lot of benefits.  If it's just
read only, it's tough to distinguish yourself from a regular web server.


>
> thinking this way in part because the idea of "solid lite" reminds me of
> the gemini protocol <https://geminiprotocol.net> (a project i'm not part
> of but have enjoyed reading about (like solid) that is trying for a better
> internet ethos (like solid)) -- a minimalist read-only subset of solid
> could be a similar size and shape to gemini
> <https://geminiprotocol.net/docs/faq.gmi#412-im-familiar-with-http-and-html-how-is-gemini-different>
> (but using a subset of http instead of a bespoke network protocol and a
> handful of rdf mediatypes instead of 'text/gemini')
>
> would the simplicity of a read-only interface make it an easy step on the
> path toward adopting full solid, or would that remove so much it wouldn't
> be worth adopting on its own? (or, as is likely, have i misunderstood
> something important?)
>
> - abram axel booth
>