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

čt 12. 10. 2023 v 20:42 odesílatel James Doe <jamesdoejr@gmail.com> napsal:

> 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 🚀
>

If you have 7-14 days free, you could perhaps ask if it (ie a lite solid
spec) could be a CG work item.  There is a certain amount of bureaucracy
involved with it, and I dont now how far 14 days will get you into that.
But it would be interesting to see if it's possible.  Id welcome the effort.

>
>
>
> - 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
>>>>>
>>>>