Re: webid serializations consensus 2023

How can this group finalize anything if the same arguments are
rehashed and ignored over and over again?
https://github.com/w3c/WebID/issues/3
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webid/2022Jan/0114.html

Multiple members have highlighted why hardcoding recommendation of
specific RDF formats would be a bad idea, yet other members continue
to push this idea. I don't see any consensus here.

On Fri, Jun 16, 2023 at 12:48 PM Melvin Carvalho
<melvincarvalho@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> 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.
>> .

Received on Friday, 16 June 2023 11:33:34 UTC