Re: Unblocking WebID CG work items

Under normal circumstances I would agree, and happily co-chair, however as
previously mentioned, there's a huge elephant in the room.

1) Dereference to turtle or json-ld
- consumer must support both

2) Dereference to turtle and json-ld
- publisher must support conneg

Both of these cases may need punted to the solid wg, where it becomes a
child of an infrastructure which already requires one of these things.

IMHO WebID as it stands cannot be implemented, and already agreed decisions
mean it cannot be adopted in the future in all but edge cases - so I
personally see no way of progressing any specification, unless either:
a) a superset specification was designed, which essentially says any <uri>
which dereference to an RDF response that asserts <uri> a :Agent (where
:Agent is a well specified class in a published ontology) w/ note MAY 303
to handle range-14, or
b) a subset specification was designed, as above but constrained to a
single media type json(-ld)

For such a broad term, it may need to be (a), however that would be
entailed by any document solid produces, where the list of types is any it
currently supports / are rec's.

My personal opinion would be either to let it just move to solid and kill
this group, or take some consensus to scrap the current specification, and
produce (a) + (b) above, where (a) is deferred to by solid and anything
else implementing webid, and (b) is a subset which allows parties to
produce a very specific set of tooling, webid implementations that are only
json-ld.

To move the group to a position where we end up in an eternal conversation
about 1+2 above, where both limit deployability to some fraction of a
percentage, or keep as is constrained by MUST turtle, along with the no
definition of an :Agent which can be subclassed, would not be something I'd
want to encourage or facilitate.

On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 5:29 PM Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net> wrote:

>
>
> On 10. Jul 2023, at 18:01, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Additionally, it has been observed that the responsiveness of the current
> chair has been inconsistent, sometimes spanning weeks, months, or even
> longer.
>
> yes, your whole argument rests on an evident falsehood, which is easy to
> verify by
> just looking at the github issue repository
> https://github.com/w3c/WebID/pulls?q=is%3Apr
>
> I pointed that out in the e-mail you just responded to, but you somehow
> decided
> to repeat the falsehood again.
>
> Here’s a picture for the archives, showing that all but one issue passed.
> One was closed
> by the author after criticism.
> [image: Screenshot 2023-07-10 at 18.10.21.png]
>
> I am ok with adding a new chair, but perhaps we should choose someone who
> has experience implementing WebID, Solid, and working on the relevant
> specs. Perhaps someone like
> Nathan who was active when we were on the foaf+ssl mailing list and people
> were friendly
> and discussions were constructive.
>
>  https://markmail.org/thread/xywxnqp3adqcem5f
>
> Sarven could also co-chair…
>
> Henry
>
>
>