Re: webid serializations consensus 2023

st 5. 7. 2023 v 14:02 odesílatel Jacopo Scazzosi <jacopo@scazzosi.com>
napsal:

> > You can simplify the output, for example, with the draft context made by
> Aaron
>
> Yes, but doesn’t that only affect parsing at the JSON level? Once we cross
> into RDF, then the complexities of the JSON-LD parsing algorithm and the
> need to fetch external contexts can’t be worked around.
>
> For context, I speak from the perspective of trying to use WebID in
> environments both corporate (external resources are often not accessible)
> and IoT (low-power devices) in nature. I would be saddened but would
> understand if the group decided to simply not support these kinds of
> contexts.
>
> > The Solid WG still has to be accepted by the W3C membership, and that
> wont happen until around october.  So we still have 3 months to do a
> handover, if the group decides to go that route.
>
> Should the spec be in any way modified during the handover? Or should we
> simply represent the status quo of where we are in the various discussions
> about it, perhaps in a separate document? What’s the standard approach?
>
> > A decent amount of time in the group was spent agreeing on JSON-LD and
> it would be good to reflect that effort
>
> I think we discussed JSON-LD a lot and we all generally agree that it
> would be good to have _some kind_ of support for it at the spec level.
> However, I am afraid the agreement breaks down when it comes to the details:
>
> - Do we mention serialization formats explicitly?
> - If so, is JSON-LD a SHOULD or a MUST?
>

Suggestions:

- Use TallTed's wording as a base
- Create examples including JSON-LD
- The SHOULD/MUST can be decided towards the end, and with a straw poll
- Some editorial text can be added, if time allows, for different use cases
(low power, self hosted etc.)

We could also appoint a 2nd temporary chair for the handover period (c. 3
months) that would help get the changes into the current spec.