Re: Should we complete the WebID spec?

po 6. 11. 2023 v 16:46 odesílatel Jacopo Scazzosi <jacopo@scazzosi.com>
napsal:

> > 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.
>

Yes, same, HTML + RDF Data islands.

That I think is the consensus going forward, if we were to do anything, it
would likely be that.  Equally, it can happen outside the CG.

The current group is aligned on the utility of JSON-LD delivered over HTML

The only slight clash is Sarven's document editor which uses RDFa, so if I
know Sarven, he'll fight hard for RDFa, but would be unlikely to get
consensus on that, IMHO.


>
> > 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.
>
>
>
>
>