Re: next step for the Solid WG charter

út 21. 11. 2023 v 9:36 odesílatel Kjetil Kjernsmo <kjetil@kjernsmo.net>
napsal:

> On fredag 17. november 2023 11:30:17 CET Pierre-Antoine Champin wrote:
> > : "we see an extremely broad problem space, and a single proposed
> > solution".
>
> Indeed, I think that's a very fair description.
>
> If the Solid community, several years ago, had focused on bringing
> genuinely
> useful stuff that could be used right now to people, like late Aaron
> Swartz
> urged us to do many years ago:
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sweo-ig/2006Dec/0138.html
> then, we might have been able to show that this single solution had merit.
> But
> that opportunity has passed, in fact, it might have already been to late
> in
> 2006.
>
>
> > If I had to give an elevator pitch of the Solid protocol (i.e. the
> > expected deliverable of the proposed WG), it would be :
> > * a evolution of the LDP protocol
> > * + a standard way of authenticating users
> > * + a standard way of specifying access control
> >
> > So my idea is that, instead of pushing for a "Solid WG", why not propose
> > an "LDP 2.0 WG", chartered to produce 3 specifications : LDP 2.0
> > (client-server protocol), LDP-OIDC (authentication based on OIDC) and
> > LDP-AC (access control).
>
> Without being engaged anymore, what I found, partly as working as Solid
> Editor
> for several years, is that LDP is a extremely overcomplicated and
> incoherent
> specification. Building on LDP to cover a broad problem space and getting
> wide
> acceptance is unlikely to succeed.
>

Could you say which parts of LDP you found to be "extremely complicated and
incoherent"?

What specifically could be simplified?


>
> LDP is basically the wrong thing to stick to going forward. Instead, the
> WG
> should be more open minded towards communities that do not see LDP as
> foundational, and see how knowledge graphs, hypermedia and self-contained
> semantics can be incorporated in that.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Kjetil
>
>
>
>
>