Re: files or database for solid pods [Was: Towards Solid Lite]

st 1. 11. 2023 v 12:08 odesílatel Jonas Smedegaard <jonas@jones.dk> napsal:

> Quoting Melvin Carvalho (2023-11-01 11:41:36)
> > st 1. 11. 2023 v 11:24 odesílatel Aron Homberg <info@aron-homberg.de>
> > napsal:
> >
> > > Hi Jonas,
> > >
> > > first of all, thank you for your feedback. That was an interesting read
> > > and it brought me to a few more, deeper thoughts. Please find my
> comments
> > > inline:
> > >
> > > > Jonas Smedegaard <jonas@jones.dk> hat am 01.11.2023 16:56 WITA
> > > geschrieben:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Quoting Aron Homberg (2023-11-01 06:51:07)
> > > > > And ["serverless" environments lacking a filesystem altogether] is
> > > only one concern. What if the future lies within some sort of federated
> > > cloud storage based that we can't even imagine today? How could
> > > implementation details like that ever be well-tested?
> > > > [...]
> > > > > To keep things simple, can we please simply speak JSON as a MUST in
> > > Solid Lite? (and maybe RDF and others as a SHOULD, not enforcing it)
> > > >
> > > > I like your point that perhaps in future is becomes a major drag.
> > > >
> > > > I dislike how you create a potential major drag by mandating JSON.
> > >
> > > I just want to clarify that I'm solely coming from the place that in
> order
> > > to have a simple solution, the serialization format that is the most
> common
> > > in the industry (and likewise the one that has the broadest library
> > > support), seems to be, for my understanding, the best choice for a
> "Solid
> > > Lite".
> > >
> > > For newcomers (which was one of the intentions of Solid Lite, to
> attract
> > > them), it's already a bit of a learning curve to get into
> > > linked data in general, JSON-LD, WebID, Solid-OIDC, and all the related
> > > concepts. This is why I'm simply trying to reflect on reality, rather
> than
> > > trying to create a major drag. If in reality, RDF would be the more
> adopted
> > > serialization format, I'd have voted for RDF in the first place.
> > >
> > > I hope this explains a bit better, where I'm coming from.
> > >
> >
> > I think would be informed by 3 loose principles:
> >
> > 1 we should try to support standards
> > 2 we should be as simple as possible but no simpler
> > 3 we should be backwards compatible with the existing web
> >
> > The de-facto semantic web, as it exists today, is schema.org.  Which is
> > based on JSON-LD and HTML.  This is backwards compatible with the
> existing
> > web and has had enormous success.
> >
> > I think after all is said and done, both html and schema.org type json
> will
> > have to be supported to satisfy 1-3.
> >
> > Conversely, I dont think anything else ticks those 3 boxes.  XHTML never
> > caught on, and is not likely to in the next few years, if ever.  Turtle
> > seemed like a good bet at the time, but 10 years later, it's failed to
> gain
> > the adoption that we all hoped for.  Not to say that they are bad or
> should
> > not be included, they can be modules, aligned to the test suite, as can
> > n3.  A bit like lego bricks.  The lite spec will just be a set of lego
> > bricks put together in a certain way.
> >
> > We could inform ourselves by looking at the common crawl statistics, but
> I
> > think it's overwhelmingly going to point to a default being that the
> > de-facto standards for the (semantic) are to use html and JSON(-LD).
> >
> > Remembering also DanC's words:  "The important word in Semantic Web is
> > 'Web'"
>
> How are standards better supported by a spec requiring "MUST use JSON"
> instead of recommending "SHOULD use JSON"?
>
> How is it simplest possible and not simpler when a spec requires "MUST
> use JSON" instead of recommending "SHOULD use JSON"?
>
> How is is more backwards compatible with the existing web to have a spec
> require "MUST use JSON" rather than recommend "SHOULD use JSON"?
>
> (Please not, that nowhere in above questions are implied any converse
> requirements for RDF/Turtle nor RDF/XML nor any other dislikes of some).
>

Very good questions, Jonas

I might have confused myself over the whole thing, but here's my thoughts:

I think SHOULD be fine, rather than MUST.

But if everything is a SHOULD, have we specified enough to allow people to
build things.

In my mind it's the difference between putting together an IKEA chair, with
the instruction booklet, or without it.  We've all been there!

To the extent that all W3C standards are just "recommendations" there's a
degree of SHOULD baked in.

Without the guidance in the spec, it might be hard for developers,
particularly ones that like to follow a set of instructions, to make
interoperable servers.

Now I might have a completely wrong mental model about this, so I'll think
about your points, and that's why group discussion is good.

More specific questions:
1. Should solid lite support the semantic web?
2. Should solid lite aim to take the simplest possible minimal subset with
a chance of working?
3. Should solid lite support HTML?

Note:  I'm unsure if anyone explicitly mentioned RDF/XML but that was a big
part of the history.  What was mentioned in this thread, and to me
privately was XHTML, which never really gained adoption.

Anyway I will think further about your points, thank you.

>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
>  - Jonas
>
> --
>  * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
>  * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/
>  * Sponsorship: https://ko-fi.com/drjones
>
>  [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private