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

Jonas,

I don't think that we need to specify an RDF serialization, only that the
expectation is that you DO have a database that is RDF conformant. I don't
think you can remove that requirement and still have a Solid implementation.

This is one of the reasons I keep advocating for a GraphQL interface. It
hides the complexity of metadata storage while still maintaining a graph,
which seems to be one of the big stumbling blocks in Solid Full.



*Kurt Cagle*
Editor in Chief
The Cagle Report
kurt.cagle@gmail.com
443-837-8725 <http://voice.google.com/calls?a=nc,%2B14438378725>


On Wed, Nov 1, 2023 at 8:46 AM Nathan Rixham <nathan@webr3.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 1, 2023 at 3:11 PM Jonas Smedegaard <jonas@jones.dk> wrote:
>
>> Quoting Nathan Rixham (2023-11-01 15:18:22)
>> > On Wed, Nov 1, 2023 at 1:30 PM Jonas Smedegaard <jonas@jones.dk> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Quoting Nathan Rixham (2023-11-01 13:07:22)
>> > > > Pivot back, and we get HTTP+URL+[ONE-THING] = web of data.
>> > > > What is the most widely utilized data bearing media type on the
>> broad
>> > > > internet / web? JSON
>> > > > How do you make it more webby? add first class support for URLs
>> > > > How do you make it widely understandable in a shared manner? add
>> GETable
>> > > > schema's.
>> > >
>> > > Seems we disagree on the very goal.
>> > >
>> > > I agree that with a goal of "web of data" the natural choice is
>> > > replacing document-oriented HTML with efficiently-memory-dumpable
>> JSON.
>> > >
>> > > I just assume the different goal of "web of semantic data", where the
>> > > natural ONE-THING is not JSON but RDF.
>> > >
>> > > RDF is a ONE-THING with multiple serializations, and I really thought
>> > > that we all along agreed that this discussion was about which of the
>> RDF
>> > > serializations, not about ditching RDF altogether.
>> > >
>> >
>> > At the abstract level it's a one-thing, and at the concrete syntax
>> level,
>> > it's multiple. To remove the conneg requirement and get something lite,
>> you
>> > need one concrete syntax only.
>>
>> Why is mandating a single serialization *needed*?
>>
>
> To remove the conneg requirement, and the implied requirement that any
> implementation must support full rdf, and the entailed requirements of
> being able to store abstract rdf then recompose it to various concrete
> syntaxes.
>
>
>> I do not recognize that the web of semantic data inherently *need* a
>> single mandated RDF serialization.  I recognize how ignoring
>> complexities of some aspects can simplify working with other aspects,
>> and I respect if some decide to explore a reduction of solid where RDF
>> is omitted, despite me personally viewing RDF as the center piece.
>>
>
> How do you ignore complexities (part of RDF) and still conform to
> supporting it?
>
>
>> What I do not understand is the argument that it is not a balancing act.
>>
>
> As above.
>
> That we MUST mandate a serialization.  We mandated zero graphics
>> serializations for the web of documents, why is this any different?
>>
>
> Web of Linked Data, to form the web network of it you require a default
> type which supports links. The focus on HTML because it was the dominant
> link providing type, link to a gif and it's a dead end.
>
> You might argue that graphics is optional for the web of documents, but
>> do you then imply that RDF is optional for the web of semantic data, or
>> that solid-lite is not about semantic data?
>>
>
> I certainly imply that you can do linked data and a semantic web, viewable
> as rdf, without enforcing rdf concrete syntaxes. At the simplest level, if
> you can establish a subject in a well defined manner, map a property to a
> URI for shared schemas, and have a value which can be a URI, you have
> linked data.
>
>
>> > Simply, solid-lite which requires RDF results in full solid.
>>
>> No, but a solid-lite which requires a single RDF serialization results
>> in a fuller solid.
>>
>
> A key point missed here, is what limitations are imposed by specifying a
> single type, which parts of the rdf-stack of specs cannot then be used
> because they require multiple type support? such as the LDP example
> mentioned previously.
>
> If you keep the support multiple rdf types (which is usually entailed by
> requiring just one type), what parts of solid-full can you remove in order
> to create a notably smaller and easier to implement solid-lite?
>
> You could also argue that the complexities of solid, come from using rdf
> based types which handle the complexities of being multi-typed, that is,
> the very use of RDF is what makes it complicated.
>
> Consider if it had been JSON+Links from the start only, what would you
> require over basic HTTP verbs, would there even be a solid, or would it
> just be spec an ident/auth mechanism and some vocabs.
>
> Interesting conversation Jonas,
>
> Best, Nathan
>