Re: WebID default serialization for WebID 2.x

On Sat, 22 Jan 2022 at 01:10, Jonas Smedegaard <jonas@jones.dk> wrote:

> Quoting Sebastian Hellmann (2022-01-22 00:21:49)
> > Hi Jonas,
> >
> > a question: I am having trouble finding the current spec. Also I can not
> > find anything about NetID. See more inline.
>
> Current draft of the WebID spec is this:
> https://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/webid/spec/identity/
>
> NetID is a superset of WebID defined by Kingsley Idehen:
>
> https://www.openlinksw.com/describe/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdata.openlinksw.com%2Foplweb%2Fglossary-term%2FNetID%23this&graph=urn%3Adata%3Aopenlink%3Aglossary
>
>
> > On 21.01.22 17:49, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > > Quoting Sebastian Hellmann (2022-01-21 17:29:46)
> > >> I would argue for a more clear definition of what the webID
> > >> publisher should/must provide, simply to prevent wiggle space.
> > > So would you find it acceptable that the WebID spec states that
> > > publishers SHOULD provide JSON-LD serialization of the RDF data (and
> > > consumers SHOULD be capable of parsing JSON-LD)?
> > >
> > > ...since that is the position held by (at least) Kingsley Idehen and
> > > Aaron Coburn and me.
> >
> > That is not enough in my opinion and I am picking up some points from
> > Aaron's email. JSON-LD is a moving target. My point is maybe not
> > making JSON-LD default/mandatory, but to make it mandatory that
> > JSON-LD does not become a pain for "builders" (see Kingsley's mail).
>
> Oh well.
>
> I understand your desire to simplify, I really do.
>
> Ruben Verborgh also wrote about that desire in his latest blog entry:
> https://ruben.verborgh.org/blog/2021/12/23/reflections-of-knowledge/
>
> He links to a single paragraph by Dan Brickley and Libby Miller, about
> that complexity issue: https://book.validatingrdf.com/bookHtml005.html
>
> Let me quote here the first two sentences of that paragraph:
>
> > People think RDF is a pain because it is complicated. The truth is
> > even worse. RDF is painfully simplistic, but it allows you to work
> > with real-world data and problems that are horribly complicated.
>

Dan Brickley also said:

"I'd like to think schema.org gives Linked Data a friendly nudge back
towards its pragmatic hacker roots, and away from its drift into dogmatism
and pedantry ( URIs for everything always, content negotiation, hashes and
slashes )..."

https://twitter.com/danbri/status/1048082403229483009

>
>
>
> I really wish you would agree that we should not _mandate_ but only
> _recommend_ serialization of RDF.  We cannot possibly decide which
> format is "best" - only what is "more popular currently", which is
> unlikely to last.
>

schema.org is the most well deployed form of linked data on the web.  It's
a de-facto standard.  Low learning curve, easy to deploy and popular with
developers.

Dan took the lessons of FOAF (which was one of the inspirations behind
WebID) and reduced it to a simple, practical deployment pattern.  IMHO,
there is a path for WebID to learn from this, and do something similar.


>
> Kingsley calls it NetID so that stuff not strictly fitting some trend
> can still be treated as "valid".
>
> I want us to use the well-known term "WebID" for that purpose.  Kingsley
> is tired of trying make that happen.  Please don't prove him right.
>
>
>  - Jonas
>
> --
>  * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
>  * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/
>
>  [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private