Re: What is a WebID?

Hi Melvin,

I really hoped that this group was about defining a secure, 
industry-grade standard for decentral identity and authentication.  
Maybe as a side objective making Linked Data simpler * . However, it 
seems that the goal is to re-build FOAF and Schema.org for machine 
readable data on the web like https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000230/ is 
one of the  WebID's for Sylvester Stallone, if you are not to pedantic 
about accepting "url": as the identifier.

Now in 2023, I have the feeling that publication and discovery of 
machine readable data already works well. So what could this group add 
on top?

-- Sebastian

* simpler Linked Data:  you are aware that HTTP-range-14 can be tackled 
post request, right? curl -H "Accept: text/turtle" 
"https://databus.dbpedia.org/kurzum#this" even without a 200/Location 
Header.

On 11/9/23 04:06, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
> Need to go back to the universals here
>
> The CONCEPT of WebID is a URI -- ie a universal identifier -- you 
> dereference it, and get back machine readable data, of a certain form 
> which allows you to useful things.
>
> The nature of that form is that it denotes an Agent, a machine, user 
> or group operating on the internet
>
> The concept is different from the branding.  The concept will remain 
> working no matter how it's branded.  Much of the recent discussion is 
> over branding.
>
> The original branding 15 years ago tied the identifier to both FOAF 
> and to SSL in order to do client side authentication.
>
> My idea for a rebrand in 2014.  Was to break the ties of FOAF, SSL (ie 
> WebID-TLS) and identity to be separate concerns.  I would like to 
> point out that this was my idea, and my idea alone.  Nobody else was 
> thinking along these lines, in the slightest.  I pitched it at TPAC, 
> and, much to my surprise it caught on.  Split the concept into an 
> identity spec and an authentication spec.  Which is what we did.  I 
> remember this very well, I was sitting between TimBL and Henry at the 
> time.
>
> The specific branding of WebID then went to the group and the new 
> branding became to tie it to http and to turtle (and http 303 which 
> was a big debate).  Why?  Because it seemed like a good idea at the 
> time.  We all wanted linked data and turtle to catch on, and for W3C 
> RECs to create an interoperable standard on the Web.
>
> Turtle didnt catch on.  And so, a sensible thing to do, as we are 
> doing now, is to decouple the WebID brand from turtle, and make it a 
> modular set of specs.  A good idea for the brand, and the concept.
>
> We'll have WebID-Turtle, WebID-JSON-LD and other things that people want.
>
> Should RDF be mentioned in the super set spec?  No.  That's a branding 
> question, and it depends on whether you want to tie the particular 
> brand at a particular time to RDF.  RDF has not caught on the way we 
> wanted it to.  In fact the biggest open deployment on the social web, 
> activitypub, has deviated from RDF.  So to interoperate with that, 
> which we should, the term machine readable should be used, and RDF 
> placed in the subspecs (sub brands).
>
> Should WebID be tied to HTTP(S).  Probably yes.  The concept itself is 
> universal, social can happen over many transports.  The brand http is 
> a good one and it was always a starting point.  I've always been 
> supportive of the superset brand NetID (any URI), but let's face it, 
> it didnt catch on anywhere outside openlink in any major way.  Fair 
> play to Kingsley, to stand up for that brand, and he may well win 
> through, but NetID is not a self evident thing, it's a brand and a 
> world view.
>
> So, what is a WebID?  It's whatever we want it to be.  We ought not 
> change it too much, but it's beneficial and expedient to tweak it to 
> reflect the reality that has been observed over the last decade.  Keep 
> the brand tied (for now) to HTTP(S) a MUST in the spec.
>
> Keep it tied to machine readable data in the super spec, and to RDF in 
> the sub specs.  Have two subspecs to start with:  WebID-Turtle and 
> WebID-JSON-LD which reflect reality. If more want to be added such as 
> WebID-RDFa (with (X)HTML) that can be debated, personally RDFa a NACK 
> for me because JSON-LD in html has won that battle already, but that's 
> a branding debate for another day.
>
> Let's proceed without being too pedantic or dogmatic, and keep the 
> concept of WebID as a universal identifier on the web, in line with 
> the way URIs are universal, but specify specific modular constraints, 
> at this specific time (2023 vs 2014) to reflect what's useful and what 
> is reality.  There should be enough in there to give everyone what 
> they want. The group will end up coming to consensus on some or all of 
> these points, but the general structure will remain intact.
>
> WebID was branded and specified before.  Finalizing the detail can 
> only improve it from what it is now, both conceptually and in terms of 
> real world adoption.  Where it ends up is almost certainly better than 
> where it is today. And that's a good thing.  But it doesnt matter what 
> I think, it's up to the group figure out the details, but the highest 
> likelihood is one of progress and a better spec, which will be good 
> enough to become a W3C REC.
>
> Just my 2 cents.

Received on Thursday, 9 November 2023 08:37:43 UTC