Re: Should we complete the WebID spec?

On 2023-11-06 16:51, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
> The current group is aligned on the utility of JSON-LD delivered over HTML

Citation needed. I don't recall any "consensus" around any

> 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.

Oh Melvin, I'm always amused when you lure me in :) But you sure do know 
I love the topic on RDFa.

So, the document editor ( https://dokie.li/ , 
https://github.com/linkeddata/dokieli ) is not writing WebID Profile 
Documents (at this point). It consumes representations (of WebID Profile 
Documents or something else) in concrete RDF syntaxes just fine. It can 
also write using one of the concrete RDF syntaxes, generally plays along 
with server's Accept along with Accept-* methods, where sometimes their 
combinations are given by a specification.

I "fight hard for RDFa" only when I need to dismiss FUD, not for the 
sake of RDFa. I understand the utility of each syntax just fine :)

I argue for using RDFa in certain cases because it is more suitable than 
the other syntaxes - it is not a general rule by any means. But 
generally, see https://csarven.ca/linked-research-decentralised-web#why-rdfa

(Just a heads-up: don't bother talking to me about "patching" RDFa in 
HTML being an issue unless you want to talk about "patching" RDF 
embedded in HTML tags or spell out all the mechanisms on the server-side 
that's actually required for that "patching" to work.)

The fundamental and recurring issue that I find folks bumping into is a 
conflation of personal preferences vs. what's "better". It all depends 
on the criteria that's used to measure things.

If we want to open up RDF in markup languages, don't arbitrarily limit 
syntaxes. Acknowledge 
https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#dfn-concrete-rdf-syntax (as well 
as any RDF syntax embedded in HTML script tags).

As a matter of fact, I do know that it is possible to get a lot of 
mileage out of RDFa-based WebID Profile Documents, but I'm not here to 
convince folks about RDFa here at this point. Stuff is already 
well-documented, and it doesn't take much to implement and check things 
out (see also that why-rdfa).

That aside, if one doesn't like or want to use RDFa, no problem! Say 
that exactly. Just kindly step aside and don't block others from using it.

And, no, consensus in the Group doesn't at all imply that I approve 
everything or anything either. I'm one voice among many. I'll say my 
bit, and the group decides as a whole the best way forward.

So, please take care of the words you use...

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

Received on Monday, 6 November 2023 16:27:59 UTC