Re: any volunteers to chair the webid cg?

Hi Kingsley,

On 11/8/23 20:26, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>
> On 11/8/23 2:05 PM, Sebastian Hellmann wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I am considering to apply as chair at the moment. I previously was 
>> involved in the RDB2RDF XG Group that lead to R2RML, then the W3C 
>> standards ITS-2.0  and SHACL as well as previously chairing the 
>> BPMLOD Community Group [1]. However,  before I apply, I would like to 
>> clarify 1. goals as well as the 2. the WebID definition.
>>
>> Especially 2. definition is a hard blocker IMHO. There seems to be a 
>> lot of confusion about every point here and the lack of foundation 
>> seems to make it very difficult to reach consensus in any way (also 
>> lack of clear goals and defined use cases).
>>
>> # What is a WebID?
>>
>> Maybe we can start with a simple question. Regarding 
>> https://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData.html does WebID require 
>> point 1 , 1&2  or 1&2&3.
>>
>> I would probably consider point 1 to be sufficient as identification 
>> and even allow URNs.  Although, the "Web" in WebID implies that it 
>> SHOULD or MUST be on the web.
>
> Yes, the "Web" in "WebID" is all about HTTP. That was always the 
> fundamental intention i.e., harness the same protocol that drives the 
> ubiquitous Web.
>
> The magic of the Web is easily harnessed via "#" based fragment 
> identifiers when it comes to naming things.

Ok, so you would vote for 1 & 2:  Use URIs as names for things & Use 
HTTP URIs so that people can look up those names.

1. Is there consensus about 1 & 2?

2. Would the standard gain from being based on 1, i.e. is there a use 
case, where you would access URNs e.g. via SPARQL?

3. What about 3:  When someone looks up a URI, provide useful 
information, using the standards (RDF*, SPARQL)?

4. Isn't HTTPS a MUST? or is it optional?

4. Is WebID returning a 401 Unauthorized acceptable or not?

>
>
>>
>> # Identifier vs. Identity vs. Person
>>
>> webid:Person is mapped to foaf:Person at the moment. <#me> a 
>> foaf:Person means that <#me> is the identifier, that identifies a 
>> real-world person.  So the identifier and actual person is clear. But 
>> where or what is actually the "identity"? Semantically, I understand 
>> "identification" . Does this follow some logical school or framework 
>> with a definition?  Or is it just implicitly assumed that the Person 
>> and the Web Identity are the same thing, although one is digital and 
>> one is physical (so possibly not identical) and both are identified 
>> by the same identifier.
>
>
> As per my previous post, you have:
>
> 1. WebID -- an identifier used to name agents.
>
> 2. WebID-Profile Document -- a document that describes agents
>
> There's no realm that I know of where an Identifier (for naming) and 
> its referent are the same thing :)


So I would consider this a motion for renaming the standard WebID from 
Web Identity into Web Identifier.

-- Sebastian


>
>
> Kingsley
>
>>
>> -- Sebastian
>>
>> [1] https://www.w3.org/community/bpmlod/
>>
>> On 11/8/23 15:42, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
>>> i believe it's a requirement of cg to have at least one chair
>>>
>>> since a few people are still active, I was wondering if anyone has 
>>> time to chair the group
>>>
>>> that could also make work items easier
>>>
>>> if not, the group will likely close in due course
>>
>