Re: Should we complete the WebID spec?

On 11/1/23 5:52 PM, Nathan Rixham wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 1, 2023 at 9:16 PM Melvin Carvalho 
> <melvincarvalho@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>     Dear Group
>
>     I trust this message finds you well.
>
>     Over the last couple of days in Solid CG we have been discussing
>     the possibility of a "Solid-Lite" spec.
>
>     I have begun drafting it, but there's two remaining sections that
>     I need to complete.
>
>     1. A lite WebID profile
>     2. A lite authentication method for said profile
>
>     Considering recent events, it's entirely understandable if the
>     group feels hesitant to pursue the WebID Specs further. I've made
>     an effort to capture our previous discussions and integrated
>     aspects from Nathan's superset/subset proposal, which you can
>     review here:
>
>     https://github.com/webidcg/draft-spec
>
>     So I was wondering if there is an appetite to carry on working, or
>     to call it a day.  We dont have a chair but we were operating via
>     Jacopo's proposal of lazy consensus.
>
>     We could use that system to decide whether or not to close the group.
>
>     Or to carry on and complete Nathan's suggestion.
>
>     Does anyone have thoughts on this?
>
>
> For human to human and basic uses, "what is your webid? it's <x>" will 
> suffice
>
> For machine readable data, a type Agent, and a property with a domain 
> of Agent would suffice.
>
> For anything more advanced, such as protocol usage to verify ownership 
> (webid-tls for example) or similar, then further requirements may be 
> placed, such as constraining a media type set or determining a 
> validation method.
>
> I guess, how much does the group want to specify?
>
> At a bare minimum, I'd say "a type Agent, and a property with a domain 
> of Agent " is required, then perhaps a spec to say x,y,z media types 
> have an ontology describing this available.


Hi Nathan,

A WebID is just an identifier. It has to stay as just that.  It SHOULD 
resolve to a profile document, which is where things get challenging.

A WebID profile document should comprise a machine-computable 
description of its subject (named by a WebID). I encourage the use of an 
HTML doc comprising metadata delivered as an RDF-based structured data 
island using JSON-LD, Microdata, or Plain Old Semantic (POSH).

Why is this important?

Profile documents need to be familiar to both end-users and developers, 
the only document type that satisfies that condition is HTML.

Storyline:

The self-sovereign identity and eventual privacy control journeys start 
from a WebID that resolves (without explicit content negotiation) to a 
profile document i.e., via a "#" based fragment identifier.

Terminology:

RDF -- an abstract language for structured data expression (using a 
variety of notations) and representation (using a variety of 
serialization formats).


Regards,

Kingsley Idehen 
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Home Page:http://www.openlinksw.com
Community Support:https://community.openlinksw.com
Weblogs (Blogs):
Company Blog:https://medium.com/openlink-software-blog
Virtuoso Blog:https://medium.com/virtuoso-blog
Data Access Drivers Blog:https://medium.com/openlink-odbc-jdbc-ado-net-data-access-drivers

Personal Weblogs (Blogs):
Medium Blog:https://medium.com/@kidehen
Legacy Blogs:http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen/
               http://kidehen.blogspot.com

Profile Pages:
Pinterest:https://www.pinterest.com/kidehen/
Quora:https://www.quora.com/profile/Kingsley-Uyi-Idehen
Twitter:https://twitter.com/kidehen
Google+:https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about
LinkedIn:http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen

Web Identities (WebID):
Personal:http://kingsley.idehen.net/public_home/kidehen/profile.ttl#i
         :http://id.myopenlink.net/DAV/home/KingsleyUyiIdehen/Public/kingsley.ttl#this