Re: Reviewing solid formal objection (9) -- broadening the scope of the group

čt 12. 10. 2023 v 11:18 odesílatel Pierre-Antoine Champin <
pierre-antoine@w3.org> napsal:

> On 11/10/2023 17:27, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
> > Reviewing the formal objections to the solid charter I was trying to
> > understand this one better.
> >
> > In particular, I didnt fully parse what "all ideas proposing
> > solutions" means in the context beneath
> >
> > text:
> >
> > "broaden the scope of the group, do not restrict the solution space
> > (9, FO)
> >
> > PAC: it would be better if the group address the problem and bring to
> > the table all ideas proposing the solutions."
> >
> > Would be great if anyone can shed some light on this
>
> To develop a bit what I was saying:
>
> many reviewers criticized the fact that this charter is focusing on a
> preconceived  solution (namely, the Solid protocol), and suggested that
> the WG should be addressing a *problem*, keeping an open mind on all
> possible solutions to that problem (Solid being only one of them).
>

It's not clear from the charter what problem is being solved.  In Michiel's
thread "Add Explainer" this is explored further, and I responded here:

https://github.com/solid/solid-wg-charter/issues/52#issuecomment-1740195858

What is the USP of Solid.  What does solid do that is not done elsewhere.
I think it's a much more valid question than a year ago.  As someone that
follows over 50 open source projects, Soiid being one, there is tremendous
innovation in this space.

What is Solid?  Is it social linked data?  Is it cloud storage?  Is it an
RDF API?  Is it a Turtle Linked Data Solution?  Is it a client side app
ecosystem?  Is it a read-write web solution?  Is it a web operating system?

Perhaps a little of all, but the messaging is unclear from the WG charter
and the specs.

What has been delivered resembles a cloud storage solution with a bespoke
(rather than universal) API.  A universal API would have some logic to it,
and pass the "Test of independent invention".  Solid doesnt quite do this,
it is a set of opinions on cloud storage that would be unlikely to be
invented elsewhere.  Nor is it mainstream, the pushes for Turtle and RDFa
for example are not in line with industry standards, and have few redeeming
qualities.

So it has moved from a universal solution (read-write web, social linked
data, completion of the web project, the web done right) to a bespoke,
largely proprietary solution, which is something like turtle first cloud
storage.  As the RDF stack evolves to RDF-Star it will become even more
bespoke, and drift towards academic research.

There are fragments of excellent and visionary ideas buried within solid,
but this is not well expressed in the charter or spec.  For example the
ability to create graphs of data that can be merged and benefit from
unexpected reuse.  Open ended data using the open world assumption.  RDF
based client side apps that can be swapped out (like a desktop OS).
Ability to bridge other systems.  Ability for machines and humans to work
together.  And so on.  There could be a better case made.


>
> As I stated during the CG meeting, all hats off (this is my personal
> opinion, *not* an official W3C possition), I find this criticism a bit
> unfair: if we had come with a charter with no clear path forward, only
> the will to discuss and compare different solutions, we would probably
> have been rejected and told to create a CG for that... which actually
> this group has, 5 years ago!
>
> That being said, it could still be argued that the CG itself  was
> started around a preconceived solution. Some reviewers wonder to what
> extend this has prevented other communities to join the discussion. I'm
> currently gathering evidence that these discussions have actually
> happened between the Solid community at large and other groups :
>
> * joint meeting btw the Solid CG and the FedCM CG in 2021/ :
>
> https://github.com/solid/authentication-panel/blob/main/meetings/2021-02-22-webid.md
> * joint meeting btw the Solid CG and  the Credentials CG in 2021:
> https://w3c-ccg.github.io/meetings/2021-03-10-solidextra/
> * joint meeting btw the Solid CG and  the WebAgents CG in 2023:
> https://github.com/solid/specification/blob/main/meetings/2023-09-26.md
> * Michiel reported some interactions between a bunch of Solid pioneed
> with the Hunosted CG back in 2015
> * In March 2023, the European commission organized a workshop on "Solid
> and MyData operator interoperability"
>
> https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/collection/semic-support-centre/event/second-workshop-personal-data-spaces


Solid CG founder's hat on.  It's important not to rewrite the history of
this group.  I started this group completely on my own.  I did ask TimBL if
i could and he said sure.  TimBL and inrupt didnt join till much later.
Only after the group had become a success.  With the group I appointed two
chairs, and allowed it to set its own path.

I started this group to be a broad inclusive group and a way to discuss
wider topics in Solid in a threaded way, and in a way that the history
would be saved.  This became a vital part of Solid because other areas
(e.g. github) had become dysfunctional with comments and the history
censored or even deleted.  Whole repositories were deleted, too.  That left
the CG as the sole place where thoughts about solid could be expressed and
survive.

After many people joined the group Mitzi then asked John Bruce if she could
join and he said, "Only if you have time".

Something happened, I dont know what, perhaps someone in the group knows.
But we went from having two chairs selected by the group.  To having just
one chair, the pseudo-anonymous "Solid Manager".  After that we had just
one chair, from Inrupt, namely Sarven.

Whe had a project and a product before the start of the group.  Namely what
we had worked on since 2007, what started as FOAF, then FOAF with
authentication (FOAF+SSL), then FOAF became WebID, and SSL became TLS.
WebID + TLS.  Together with the read-write group we added authorization
using WebAccessControl.  Now it was a holistic social solution with user
generated content, powered by linked data.  Since then it has moved more
towards academic research, so now it is more of a mix.

This movement has been going on for 15 years, and the Solid CG is just one
expression of it.  There has been a lot of outreach.

What we have today is a preconceived solution which is a cloud storage API.

The question of "What is Solid?" is unanswered right now.  It is trying to
be a universal solution to something, and trying to be a specific solution
to something.  But it's not clear what.  That could be much better
expressed in an explainer, a vision, or in the charter itself.


>
>
> To conclude I believe that there would be some value in creating a
> broad-scope CG around personal data stores, where many different
> solutions could be discussed and compared, and where
> bridges/convergences between them could be incubated. But that should
> not prevent a WG to progress on a a particular solution that fits the
> need of a number of different stakeholders, and for which they need an
> interoperable standard.
>

I think the objections are easily overcome, but as a community it would be
a good exercise to answer for ourselves the question: "What is Solid?"


> Again, this is my personal opinion at this stage, *not* the official W3C
> position. But that's the case I intend to make internally in order to
> move forward with the charter.
>

Thanks much for the clarification!


>
>
> >
> > https://hackmd.io/GR3lSqD0RS6_r986wK9Hug
>