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

Melvin,

Let's move 'not too far away' into our now 💪🏿

If all that's between us, and bringing the OG's vision to light in the
present day, is 7 to 14 days of nose-to-the-grindstone, then sign me up.

I'm committed to participation in a sprint to derive this MVP version of a
compliant and uber-lightweight SOLID implementation.

Let's get it done, or come close trying 🚀


- James (https://www.linkedin.com/in/jamesdoejr)


On Thu, Oct 12, 2023, 2:02 PM Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> 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
>>>>
>>>