Hi Jacopo, I think all of us want to see WebID as a legit specification that lives up to the W3C standards. There clear principles in how the specs should be structured, and one one them is orthogonality which I already brought up 1.5 years ago: https://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#orthogonal-specs That is why you don’t see SPARQL specs mandating specific RDF formats. SPARQL Protocol mentions conneg, but it does not mandate MUST or SHOULD for JSON-LD or Turtle or any other syntax. Yet in this group, most seem inclined to ignore this principle. Can someone explain to me why? In my personal opinion, it is detrimental to the WebID specification effort. Martynas atomgraph.com On Fri, 16 Jun 2023 at 14.09, Jacopo Scazzosi <jacopo@scazzosi.com> wrote: > > 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 > > I think we can look at that thread in a much more optimistic light. Just > consider that it dates back to Jan 2022. TallTed’s proposal > https://github.com/w3c/WebID/issues/3#issuecomment-1051064330, which > relaxes the requirement on any given format, is from Feb 2022. I refer to > it in https://github.com/w3c/WebID/issues/3#issuecomment-1279931734 , > which is from Oct 2022. > > Of course some of us would like for there to be _no mention whatsoever_ of > suggested formats. Others would like to see a few MUSTs on one or more > specific formats. It is said that a good compromise makes everyone > tolerably unhappy. I think we were very close to a good compromise. > >
Received on Friday, 16 June 2023 16:37:37 UTC