Re: WebID default serialization for WebID 2.x

On 1/25/22 1:28 PM, Nathan Rixham wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 6:19 PM Kingsley Idehen 
> <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote:
>
>     On 1/25/22 10:58 AM, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
>>     Someone asked me out of band if this tiny example would work as a
>>     WebID:
>>
>>     {
>>       "@id": "<webid>",
>>        "@type": Agent,
>>        "name": "whatever",
>>        "public_keys": [a,b,c]
>>     }
>>
>>     While not perfect, its seems not far off at all.
>>
>>     Imagine if WebID were that simple.  You could use it today,
>>     already with the public keys it will handle auth, and extensible
>>     to many other things.
>
>     Hi Melvin,
>
>     WebID and WebID-Profile document are indistinguishable i.e., they
>     are conflated in your opening sentence.
>
>     A WebID is one thing.
>
>     A WebID-Profile Document is another.
>
>     Speaking about them ambiguously leads to confusion.
>
>     If I where writing that message I would have said:
>
>     Someone asked me out of band if this tiny JSON snippet would work
>     as a *WebID-Profile*:
>
>     {
>       "@id": "<webid>",
>        "@type": Agent,
>        "name": "whatever",
>        "public_keys": [a,b,c]
>     }
>
>     Answer:
>     It would work if it was constructed using valid JSON, rather than
>     a mix of JSON and JSON-LD.
>
>     Structure Template Revision:
>
>     {
>       "id": "<resolvable-identifier-that-denotes-this-agent>",
>        "type":
>     "<resolvable-identifier-that-denotes-an-agent-class-in-some-vocab>",
>        "name": "<literal label of this profile doc>",
>        "public_keys": [<list-of-public-keys>]
>     }
>
>     That will work absolutely fine, without any confusion arising from
>     form and function, since that's just an Entity Relationship Graph
>     encoded using JSON.
>

Hi Nathan,


>
> Would a fair definition of a valid WebId then be something like: A URI 
> is a valid WebIdentifier if it dereferences to a valid WebId-Profile 
> describing the URI with the minimum set of required properties (type, 
> name, public_keys)?


A WebID is a resolvable identifier that denotes an agent. It resolves to 
a WebID Profile Document.


>
> minor: perhaps type could be inferred if name or public_keys had a 
> range in the context, or perhaps it would be better to be required for 
> simple consumption by "dumb" clients.
>
> Nathan


There is a subtlety here that's the root of confusion. Here's my best 
attempt to explain the matter:

Denotation and Connotation are distinct things that are crucial 
components that enable Identification (i.e., the combined effects of 
Denotation and Connotation).

Denotation is about a sign functioning as an indexical 
<https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/indexical#this>. A 
resolvable identifier handles denotation.

Connotation is about using signs to map out description e.g., an entity 
relationship graph comprising attribute=value pairings that coalesce 
around some indexical 
<https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/indexical#this>. A profile 
document handles connotation.

An HTTP URI (or IRI) has the unique, but confusing, superpower of 
combining denotation and connotation by way of indirection. Even more 
magical, said indirection can be explicit (using 303 redirection, as per 
DBpedia) or implicit (using the more powerful "#{whatever}" appended any 
URL).

Thus, whenever we utter:

"X is a WebID" with "Y the Profile Document to which X resolves" in 
mind, we unleash a can of worms i.e., we drop straight into a battle 
over "The Default Format" etc..

This issue has stifled many things over the years:

1. RDF understanding (HttpRange-14)

2. Linked Data Principles understanding (someone decided to tweak 
TimBL's original guidelines thereby bringing RDF misconceptions [re RDF 
== RDF/XML] and HttpRange-14 to bear)

3. WebID understanding (the same old format battles re MUST)

Personally, the phrases "WebID Profile Document"  or "NetID Profile 
Document" aren't tongue twisters that need conflating with WebID and 
NetID respectively. They are a two distinct parts of the system we've 
been collectively trying to unleash, it just so happens that these parts 
are co-equal :)

If we don't get terminology nailed down, our delicate quest will never 
reach exit velocity, IMHO.

MUST (for any format) and problems are inextricably linked :)

-- 
Regards,

Kingsley Idehen 
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Home Page:http://www.openlinksw.com
Community Support:https://community.openlinksw.com
Weblogs (Blogs):
Company Blog:https://medium.com/openlink-software-blog
Virtuoso Blog:https://medium.com/virtuoso-blog
Data Access Drivers Blog:https://medium.com/openlink-odbc-jdbc-ado-net-data-access-drivers

Personal Weblogs (Blogs):
Medium Blog:https://medium.com/@kidehen
Legacy Blogs:http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen/
               http://kidehen.blogspot.com

Profile Pages:
Pinterest:https://www.pinterest.com/kidehen/
Quora:https://www.quora.com/profile/Kingsley-Uyi-Idehen
Twitter:https://twitter.com/kidehen
Google+:https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about
LinkedIn:http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen

Web Identities (WebID):
Personal:http://kingsley.idehen.net/public_home/kidehen/profile.ttl#i
         :http://id.myopenlink.net/DAV/home/KingsleyUyiIdehen/Public/kingsley.ttl#this