Re: WebID lack of adoption, was Re: Turtle and JSON-LD Matter

Sent from my iPad

> On 18 Jul 2014, at 4:40 am, Anders Rundgren <anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 2014-07-17 19:45, Timothy Holborn wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Sent from my iPad
>> 
>> On 18 Jul 2014, at 1:25 am, Anders Rundgren <anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>>> On 2014-07-17 17:09, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> On 17 July 2014 17:00, Seth Russell <russell.seth@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> How does "facebook serve WebID" ?   How does G+ not serve WebID ?
>>>> 
>>>> graph.facebook.com complies with the webid spec, and servers turtle/rdf
>> +1
>>> I don't see reuse/adoption of a particular ZYZ data-structure in a centralized service like Facebook as a sign of "XYZ won".
>>> 
>>> The core problem for WebID remains which is the authentication part which has very limited adoption and with U2F is likely to die completely.
>>> Combing WebID with U2F is possible but creates a poor user-experience and is thus a dead-end.
>> -1 
>> I actually think the problem might best be solved by looking at the definition of the group - http://www.w3.org/community/webid/
>> 
>> The existing foaf spec is "fit for purpose", as are constituents of webid-tls, and webid, etc.
>> 
>> Specs are arguably too narrow - else greater take-up might have been experienced - or perhaps as defined by "market economics" (or some such term).  Perhaps it's still too early to see the genius of the existing spec, it's happened before.... Yet, Now alternatives for identity solutions (often not considering the good use-cases already done I the webid group) are emerging, and have done for some time...
>> 
>> Perhaps a new group needs to be established - or revisiting the charter of this group to better consider the "emerging issues" within the linked-data identity space...
>> 
>>> The only way to save WebID is to fix the original concept but that requires a bit more than a bunch of guys (where are the girls BTW?) with strong opinions.  Since such an endevour wouldn't (initially at least) get any support from the browser-vendors it is clearly out of scope for W3C.
>> Don't go backwards.  Spec is good.  Just not enough options yet.  Eco-system could be developed further.
> 
> IMO, decentralized systems must be *better* than the already established centralized systems to get anywhere.
> Ideology won't help unless you are targeting enthusiasts only.
> 
> WebID lacks an accepted authentication solution and thus have to rely on other authentication services.
> Then we are back to: Why not just use Google?
> 
We also need a cloud storage /read write web -platform, to enable decentralised web, in addition to - webized, consumer friendly applications.

Ev cars need more than a standard spec for a multi-mode plug, yet it equally, just won't work without one.

Timh.
> W3C cannot do anything in this space unless they get a buy-in from some of their core ($68500/annually) members.
> None of them seems to be here...
> 
> The FIDO/Google U2F project also says that none of these guys really want to work in open with highly controversial stuff like identity+authentication.
> 
> WebID is probably regarded by Google as a *really bad* since U2F's privacy model is more of less the *opposite*.
> 
> I.e. W3C can't do this.
> 
> Anders
> 
>> 
>> One way or another, I guess...
>> 
>> Json-ld isn't going away.  U2f seems good.  Few solutions out their in a potential "identity Eco-system", so assuming we're not politicians? What does the science say?  
>> 
>> The field is within the decentralised web - use cases / scientific endeavour - essentially?  So, linked-data, etc? We're not looking at how to maintain ID within traditional sns / sql db driven sites... From what I understand anyhow? 
>> 
>> Timh.
>> 
>>> Anders
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> we actually had a promise from google that they would serve FOAF, but we're still looking forward to seeing that implemented :)
>>>>  
>>>>> 
>>>>> seth 
>>>>> 
>>>>> the #toothlessfoodie
>>>>> Facebook: facebook.com/russell.seth
>>>>> Blog: fastblogit.com/seth/
>>>>> Talking products: www.speaktomecatalog.com
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 7:40 AM, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 17 July 2014 15:53, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 07/17/2014 08:14 AM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 7/16/14 8:01 PM, Sandro Hawke wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>    Maybe worthwhile, but there's a real cost.
>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>> >The cost is a perception. The real cost calculation should be based on
>>>>>>>>>> >the dearth of WebID-* implementations, since inception. Add that to all
>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>> >time spent explaining what WebID-* is about, after all of these years.
>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> I think there are several reasons WebID and WebID-TLS have seen only meager adoption.    I don't think what the specs say about RDF syntaxes are a big part of that.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>     - Sandro
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> And what are these issues that are unrelated to RDF? The UI/UX misconceptions swirling around TLS CCA (Client Certificate Authentication) as implemented by browsers?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I didn't say unrelated to RDF....
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I'm not sure how to answer your question without being quite negative.   Please understand I'm so critical because I think decentralized identity is vital.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Yes, the UI browsers provide for client certs is a huge barrier. Until we all understand why that UI is so bad, or web-crypto provides a workaround, WebID-TLS has no chance.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The lack of clarity over what WebID actually is and WebID-TLS actually is, those form a huge barrier.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The social style and modes of this group are a huge barrier.   I hope I'm wrong, but my sense is this group has operated with an attitude of "we've got the solution", instead of "here are some use cases and some technologies which can address them," and making bridges to other people working on related problems.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> httpRange-14 (and the resulting HashURIs) is a huge, huge barrier.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The reliance on RDF details and FOAF details is a huge barrier. JSON-LD and a new vocabulary (not foaf) could address this.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I think to move forward will require forming a happy working relationship with the kinds of folks who love h-card and maybe Mozilla Persona.  That will probably require                                           bending on all of the above.   If that can be achieved, then there might be a chance for WebID.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> If LDP would have put JSON-LD and Turtle on equal standing, why can't this happen to WebID-* which hasn't even got anywhere close to the formal status of LDP?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> All I was arguing on that front was that there is value to getting everyone to agree on one syntax or at least a very small number of syntaxes.    I was replying to people suggesting it's fine for WebID dereference to return pretty much any syntax one wants, trying to point out allowing such proliferation of syntaxes is actually a huge problem.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I'm certainly NOT saying that by W3C procedure it's too late to change!   (WebID isn't even to the point in W3C process where there are any procedures, I suspect.)
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I simply want adoption of these efforts. Thus, anything that leads to broader adoption is good. Basing any RDF based spec on a single notation via MUST always leads to the same adoption-inertia generating misconceptions.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I don't happen to agree.   Or perhaps I don't understand.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Maybe you can explain this adoption-inertia idea in terms of the web's initial common                                           image formats, GIF and JPEG?    Things were very simple in the days of only gif.   But gifs were too darn big, so we needed jpeg.   Fortunately, browsers implemented support for both, so content providers could pick which ever they wanted. There were certainly other options (tiff? xbm? bmp?) but they were not widely implemented in the browsers, so content providers didn't use them.    (I was recently looking at a web page I made in about '93 where for each image I provided links to the jpeg and the gif, because one still couldn't assume everyone could see both.)
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Things worked out fairly smoothly and fairly quickly because there was a small number of browser providers.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> If there had been 1000 equal size browser vendors, and some went with tiff and some xbm and some bmp, etc, we would have had a real problem.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I think with linked data clients, we're kind of still in that territory.    Without some sense of which formats folks should actually use, they could well become hopelessly fragmented, eg with some people one reading and writing RDF/XML, some only reading/writing Turtle, etc.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Yes, eventually people will figure it out and coalesce around a couple of the most common, but why not save that hassle when there's consensus up front about which those are?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> As per my response to Andrei, for now, adding JSON-LD examples to the relevant WebID-* documents is a useful tweak that will at the very least get more JSON oriented developers to look at WebID-*.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I completely agree.    Personally, I'd be fine with giving JSON-LD equal status to Turtle.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Actually, I think probably the best option is mandating publication in JSON-LD and RDFa, in both cases with a syntax that hides the IRIs as much as possible.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> We need to also be clear about how simple and small relying-party code can be.    Maybe we can say it has to include both a JSON-LD and an RDFa parser, in which case we could say that identity-providers only need to provide one or the other.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> We can do better in regards to managing the non technical aspects of open standards adoption. First step boils down to be more accommodating of other notations for representing RDF statements. You can reduce the adoption-inertia generating effects of MUST via lots of examples that render it moot, so to speak.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> (as above)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Agree with a lot of these points, but let me add:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> There are more WebIDs out there than any other identity system, since facebook serve WebID.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> WebID + TLS is a nice experiment and useful as a proof of concept, and very useful for testing, but I dont think anyone ever expected it to get a billion users.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> We need to do a lot more work on interoperabilty and demos before people can really see the value added.
>>>>>>  
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Yours in service to a more decentralized Web,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>        -- Sandro
>