- From: Jacopo Scazzosi <jacopo@scazzosi.com>
- Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2023 14:57:03 +0200
- To: Nathan Rixham <nathan@webr3.org>
- Cc: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>, public-webid <public-webid@w3.org>
> Naïve response: is it possible to come to a consensus on interoperability without several widely deployed and utilized systems which need to interop and standardize base level requirements between them? Good point. I can only speak from my own experience, mainly informed by trying to use WebID in corporate contexts. The main issue for me has been that “simple”, such as having a single MUST on Turtle or JSON-LD, very quickly proved to be rather “impractical", such as when trying to host WebIDs on internal CMSs designed for HTML content and lacking ConNeg. I never even got to the actual interoperating with other systems, sadly, and after speaking with other colleagues I can’t see how any of the major ERPs, CRMs, CMSs and so on could be easily (as in, the effort must stand a chance at being approved by the average chain of command) tweaked to accommodate WebIDs as the spec stands today. To your point, I guess I am extrapolating as to which version of WebID may be the _least_ widely adopted in the future - anything mandating ConNeg - and aiming the other way. With the spec as-is, even hosting my own WebID in a manner that is readable by both humans and machines requires a level of investment that I find to be exceedingly high relative to the simplicity of most static hosting services.
Received on Friday, 16 June 2023 12:57:21 UTC