- From: Juan Caballero <virtualofficehours@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2025 10:33:51 +0200
- To: Sarven Capadisli <info@csarven.ca>
- Cc: Social Web Incubator Community Group <public-swicg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAP8tQw2s-15TMRa63Zd2tOx5QCH0sk4OoLeeLNp=v3yZyxdTtA@mail.gmail.com>
(i think the portability use cases FEP, for all its weaknesses, covers some more use cases that any proposed did method design would score points by covering some of!) ------------------------------ Juan Caballero, PhD. Freelance <https://www.caballerojuan.com> researcher, consultant, and free thinker Signal/whatsapp: +1 415-3101351 Berlin-based: +49 1573 5994525, CET/UTC+2 Native: English, Español; Functional: Deutsch, Français, Português On Sun, Sep 21, 2025, 10:32 AM Juan Caballero <virtualofficehours@gmail.com> wrote: > I would argue we're better off clarifying the use case for non-webfinger > discovery and seeing if the work of giving AP implementers (at minimum) a > new endpoint to implement for a new DID method helps that use case along > and justifies the upgrade. > > more generally tho, I like the idea! just learned long ago that did > methods are export formats for solutions to many (mostly implicit or > underanalyzed) usecases. prefer to have ground truth on which solutions > justify an upgrade > > > ------------------------------ > Juan Caballero, PhD. > Freelance <https://www.caballerojuan.com> researcher, consultant, and > free thinker > Signal/whatsapp: +1 415-3101351 > Berlin-based: +49 1573 5994525, CET/UTC+2 > Native: English, Español; Functional: Deutsch, Français, Português > > On Sat, Sep 20, 2025, 9:55 PM Sarven Capadisli <info@csarven.ca> wrote: > >> On 2025-09-20 20:55, emelia wrote: >> > It's kinda like how people tried to cram absolutely everything into the >> > webid documents in solid. >> >> Kinda? >> >> Which people? >> >> Tried what? >> >> Absolutely everything refers to? >> >> As far as I know, there may be two relevant specifications to what you >> have in mind for your statement. If you had others in mind, please share: >> >> https://solidproject.org/TR/protocol >> >> https://solid.github.io/webid-profile/ >> >> Can you point out where in those specs your claim is supported? Or are >> you referring to specific implementations or published documents? >> >> Are you bringing up some Solid/WebID history as if it proves your case, >> when the technologies and design choices differ? Because if so, that's >> perhaps kinda like a red herring? >> >> I'm not aware of Solid "people" trying to cram absolutely everything >> into a WebID document, but I'm all ears. >> >> From experience, the vast majority of WebID documents use the WebID URI >> as the subject. Sure, there can be other statements where it's not (it >> is not forbidden), but pointing that out feels pedantic. >> >> Payloads and notifications in both Solid and ActivityPub often include >> auxiliary information in order to minimise network requests. Likewise, >> ActivityPub Activities frequently wrap the Object with considerable >> detail. Would you consider that to be "cramming everything" into the >> Activity? Or is it simply a design choice in linked data representation? >> >> "Linked data" people / connectionists do not see the world as binary. >> There is a spectrum of approaches to describing a resource, and in >> practice, that's just how the web tends to work. >> >> -Sarven >> https://csarven.ca/#i >> >
Received on Sunday, 21 September 2025 08:34:07 UTC