Re: Should we complete the WebID spec?

> I think it would be useful to see how many compliant implementations we have (possibly none), and then discuss the concrete non-compliance issues

My implementation, which unfortunately I can’t share publicly, is non-compliant WRT the current version of the spec. It uses HTML + RDF data islands, no Turtle, and cannot support ConNeg. I have another implementation coming up in a Q3 - Q4 2024 which uses Turtle but no ConNeg either, although this time it’s by choice and not because of an external constraint. This one I should be able to share once released.

> instead of abstract and vague proposals

For what it's worth, Nathan’s proposal for me is the opposite of abstract. It’s a proposal that elegantly sorts out issues I have personally stumbled upon while implementing WebID, namely:

- serialization formats & ConNeg (WebID-Turtle, WebID-RDFa, WebID-DataIslands, WebID-JSONLD, …)
- support for multiple authentication method (WebID-TLS, WebID-OAuth2, ….)
- future-proofing by making sure that the spec can be extended without altering its fundamental nature

> URNs are orthogonal to the WebID spec.  They are just names.

I have likely misunderstood your comments and, If so, my apologies. I felt as if you were introducing the concept of a “WebID URN” as something we could discuss for inclusion within the spec, which in my mind is a non-starter.

Received on Monday, 6 November 2023 15:46:32 UTC