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

čt 12. 10. 2023 v 16:16 odesílatel James Doe <jamesdoejr@gmail.com> napsal:

> Melvin,
>
> Thank you for this. Firstly, as many of us are founders ourselves, we
> resonate with the thankless nature. Founders are often the first ones to
> the party, yet sometimes are also one of the last ones to get any cake.
>
> I am giving you flowers 💐 for what is a powerful and vibrant  grouping of
> individuals 💪🏿
>
> Further, your paragraphs have been eye-opening for me in gathering a more
> comprehensive understanding of the life cycle of Solid as a programmatic
> project.
>
> It has further illuminated for me, some context for the topics discussed
> in the CG. I have an aggressive question:
>
> What is the appetite for forming a very small exploratory group that could
> identify more closely Tim's original intent for the nature and scope of
> Solid?
>

Tim's original intent is a brilliant vision.  It's captured in so many
places, in his talks (especially the early ones from the 90s), in his book,
his writings and in design issues:

https://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/

I do believe there's a great deal of appetite for completing his vision.
But there's not any one perfect way to do that, just different people
trying different things.

Solid is one expression of that.

I hope the solid spec makes it through a WG and becomes a W3C REC.

There is room for more than one approach.  As they say at the W3C: "A spec
is not finished when there is nothing more to add, but when there is
nothing left to take out"

I'd like to see a lite version of solid with a shallower learning curve,
but compatible with the full spec, with a full upgrade path.

It's about a week's work to distill the essential core components and make
a lite version.  Tim could perhaps do it himself if he has time free.

Either way, I think he should be comforted in the knowledge that his vision
as laid out in his book and in design issues (well, most of it) will one
day be completed.  Perhaps it's not too far away.


>
> I am a big 'minimum viable product' guy. I'm confident that a
> recalibration could have an exponentially powerful and profound  effect on
> future efforts of both the CG and pending WG.
>
>
> - James
>
> On Thu, Oct 12, 2023, 6:12 AM Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> 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
>>>
>>