Re: Relationship between WebID and DID (documents)

čt 30. 11. 2023 v 9:50 odesílatel Pierre-Antoine Champin <> napsal:

> On 29/11/2023 21:43, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
> (...)  DID spec is a controversial spec with multiple, formal objections
> from major W3C players, against it.
> The way you phrase it is misleading, so indulge me in some nitpicking:
> there is no such thing as "a spec with formal objections". DID is a W3C
> REC. It has the same standing as any other W3C REC.
> It is true that, before it was published, there were formal objections to
> its publication as a REC. Those formal objections have been overruled, as
> part of the W3C process. The "deal" was that the next incarnation of the
> DID WG would address the concerns of the objectors.
> Don't get me wrong: I'm not claiming  that the controversy around DIDs is
> over (as a matter of fact, the rechartering of the DID WG is still under
> discussion). But when it comes to the DID spec, it is a REC. Therefore...
> Inclusion of DID in the charter will almost certainly lead to legitimate
> formal objections down the line, which is an unnecessary risk.  WebID is a
> perfectly good standards compliant identity system, and it's going to be
> more than enough work to standardize that, in this WG.
> ... I think we risk just as much objections if we propose to create a new
> REC that overlaps with an already existing REC, unless we have very good
> arguments. I am not saying that such arguments do not exist (I honestly
> have no strong opinion eitherway), only that I they should be explicitly
> stated in the WebID spec.

Valid points but respectfully, I strongly disagree regarding the risk
surface.  If DID gets shoe-horned into Solid then I believe there will be
multiple valid objections to the work.  And rightly so.  It's a poison pill
that will torpedo, or at least delay, the effort.

Also dont forget that DID is not *one* specification, it's over 100
different sub specifications.

WebID is orthogonal in that it is 100% tied to HTTP.  There are other
incompatibilities which can be fleshed out in more detail, at a later date.

It's going to be enough of a challenge to standardize that, especially
regarding, 303 redirects, HR14, overlapping vocabs, read vs write profiles,
content negotiation, treatment of HTML, and so on.

My overall point is that the scope of solid is too broad.  As they say in
the IETF, a spec is not ready when there's nothing left to to put in, it's
ready when there's nothing left to take out.

IMHO the easiest path it to take something uncontroversial, that works, has
multiple implementations and a test-suite, even if some parts are left for
later.  Rather than packing it full of a large wish list, and then trying
to win through with politics.  But, I guess the WG will figure out which of
these paths they think is more practical.

>> To conclude: my goal here is not to dismiss anyone's work, but to try and
>> clarify our position w.r.t. other (published or in-progress) W3C standards.
>> This will be useful for chargering the Solid WG, but this is a good thing
>> to do in general, IMO.
>>     best
>> [1]
>> [2]
>> [3]
>> [4]
>> [5]
>> [6]
>> [7]

Received on Thursday, 30 November 2023 09:11:49 UTC