Re: Quick WebID CG roll call

On 2023-11-03 15:40, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
> Just a quick question to see who's still active in the WebID CG
> 
> +1 active
> 
> +1 to continuing the work on WebID, but only if there is sufficient 
> interest from members


+1 active

+1 to continue the work on WebID, but here is how I'm looking at it:

Any proposals to change the fundamentals of WebID 1.0 - WebID Identity 
and Discovery at this point should be accompanied with ample publicly 
demonstrable implementation experience, i.e.:

* allocating URIs for WebID;
* publishing documents or making representations available related to 
the proposed changes;
* building and using applications incorporating the above.

Put differently, no new architecture astronomy on what we have right now.

Latest work on the WebID 1.0 specification is at 
https://github.com/w3c/WebID/ but to really get it out there, we need to 
resolve https://github.com/w3c/WebID/issues/5 . That said, there is 
already a consensus across the WebID CG and Solid CG in that if/when 
Solid WG takes on the WebID 1.0 specification as a deliverable, the work 
will carry on there: https://github.com/solid/solid-wg-charter/issues/39 
. So, issue/5 may be resolved when it needs to be published as a FPWD at 
w3.org or possibly as ED somewhere (like github.io). If it doesn't get 
picked up by the Solid WG, WebID CG should continue with it (starting 
with issue/5).

With that aside, if there are new findings or extensions needed in the 
WebID-universe, I'd consider that as "continuing the work". Any drastic 
changes in particular to the WebID 1.0 specification should really be 
its own thing at this point, and not shoved under the current 
specification. No redefinitions or same same but different marketing of 
WebID either. I don't know what WebID 1.x or even 2.0 would look like 
right now but as mentioned above, implementation experience needs to be 
the driver.

WebID CG served its purpose - and that's a massive understatement the 
way I see it. There wouldn't be much to speak of Solid and other 
specifications or ecosystems, or a developed notion of identity and 
profiles from the perspective of SW/LD (at the very least), if it wasn't 
for this CG's findings / specifications / implementations. There are 
countless contributions in research/scholarly communication that 
use/refer/develop on this group's output. It has literally shaped the 
space we work in, as you know.

That's a long way saying: I'm interested in seeing the work continue but 
need to be mindful of ongoing social and technical developments.

-Sarven
https://csarven.ca/#i

Received on Sunday, 5 November 2023 18:43:03 UTC