Re: What is a WebID?

čt 9. 11. 2023 v 9:37 odesílatel Sebastian Hellmann <
hellmann@informatik.uni-leipzig.de> napsal:

> Hi Melvin,
>
> I really hoped that this group was about defining a secure,
> industry-grade standard for decentral identity and authentication.
>

Yes, it is a secure industry-grade standard for decentralized identity.
Just with loose-coupling.


> 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.
>

FOAF was tied to the original concept, but that's no longer a dependency.


>
> 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?
>

What's the alternatives?


>
> -- 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.
>

Trying to understand HR14 tackled post request?  Adding "#this" I know
about, and seems like a smart thing.  Unsure #this is documented anywhere,
maybe that's a good thing to do (A Note perhaps?)


>
> 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.
>