Re: webid serializations consensus 2023

pá 16. 6. 2023 v 12:33 odesílatel Jacopo Scazzosi <jacopo@scazzosi.com>
napsal:

> > What I would like is for you to take lead.
>
> If we’re going to handover WebID 1.0 to the Solid WG, that’s the last
> thing any of us should do. On the contrary, someone from the Solid WG group
> should take lead and we should act in support of that and then leave the
> stage. Do we already know anyone from the Solid WG who’d be in charge of
> WebID 1.0? Can we meet with them?
>
> If we’re to decide whether to handover WebID 1.0 to the Solid WG or not, I
> can’t take simply “take lead” and decide for the group. Even if I were a
> long-standing Editor, which I am not, isn’t this something that should be
> managed by at least by a majority vote (relative to number of cast votes,
> not to # of group participants) across both this list and the repo on
> GitHub?
>
> Lastly, if I had the authority to just "take lead" I would have most
> definitely pushed forward with
> https://github.com/w3c/WebID/issues/3#issuecomment-1279931734 … :)
>

I can live with this (
https://github.com/w3c/WebID/issues/3#issuecomment-1279931734 ) -- it has 3
upvotes and no downvotes

Particularly TattTed's revision:

    WebID Profile Document MUST be available in an RDF serialization,
whether that be RDF-Turtle (text/turtle), JSON-LD (applications/ld-json),
RDFa (text/html, application/xhtml+xml, image/svg+xml), RDF-Turtle (or
other RDF serialization) in a <script .../> or other island in HTML, or
otherwise.

    WebID Profile Document SHOULD be available in RDF-Turtle, via content
negotiation if not stored as Turtle.

    WebID Profile Document SHOULD be available in non-Turtle RDF
serializations via conneg.

As the basis for the handover.  This could be a simple update based on the
years of discussions.  With perhaps some slight tweaks.


>
> But, far from me to just give up and never suggest how we could move
> forward. Thoughts:
>
> - In all cases, I believe it would be best to respect the role of the
> Chair.
>
> - In all cases, if we are to handover to the Solid WG I would handover the
> spec as-is. I don’t think we have enough of a consensus to make any further
> change, otherwise the conversation in
> https://github.com/w3c/WebID/issues/3 and many others would make very
> little sense. This goes back to the very subject of this thread, which we
> might have slightly hijacked (sorry!).
>
> - According to https://www.w3.org/groups/cg/webid , this CG is chaired by
> Henry Story as has 70 participants, plus some more on GitHub.
>
> - According to https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webid/ and the
> “by author” listings, I would say this group has had roughly 20 active
> participants over the last year or so.
>
> - Given https://github.com/solid/solid-wg-charter/issues/39 and our
> group’s failure to hit WebID 1.0 over the years, I believe it would be
> appropriate the Chair to call for a vote on the handover.
>
> - Henry has expressed his (favorable) opinion and practically called for
> such a vote in
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webid/2023Jun/0001.html
>
> - According to these very threads, I believe 4 of us are in favor of the
> handover. This is quite far from being a demonstrable majority.
>
> - Absence of a demonstrable majority of active participants in favor of
> the handover implies that the group disagrees with the handover and the
> Solid WG ought to respect that. At that point, the best course forward
> would likely be for the Solid WG to fork WebID into a new specification
> while WebID would remain in what is effectively a form of deadlock (unable
> to get to WebID 1.0, unable to handover). For the time being, this appears
> to be the case but we have to give time for others to participate.
> .
>