Re: What is a WebID?

Hi Melvin,

On 11/9/23 11:59, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
>
>
> 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?

> A good checklist here:
>
> https://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Principles.html
>
> How many of these principles are adhered to by WebID, and how many by 
> the alternatives?

You tell me. What is actually violated in what way, when putting the 
following JSON-LD in  <script type="application/ld+json">

{
    "@context" : "https://schema.org",
    "@type" : "Person",
    "birthDate" : "1946-07-06",
    "name" : "Sylvester Stallone",
    "url" : "https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000230/"
}

Because honestly, I really don't see any practical problems.  I also see 
that you could add a second context and a public key.

-- Sebastian


>
>     -- 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.
>