Re: Consider adopting WebID 1.0 ED as a Deliverable [solid-wg-charter]

pá 16. 6. 2023 v 14:57 odesílatel Jacopo Scazzosi <jacopo@scazzosi.com>
napsal:

> > 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.
>

I'm very much supportive of the "simple" approach, and would be prepared to
work on it.  But it is unclear to me whether that is an iterm for WebID 1.0
or WebID v.next


>
> 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.