Sorry to nitpick, but Solid is not a W3C spec. Why can’t we use SPARQL (Protocol) or SHACL for reference? These are some of the most succesful RDF specs IMO. On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 at 09.58, Jacopo Scazzosi <jacopo@scazzosi.com> wrote: > Hello Kingsley, > > > Who has implementation concerns regarding this direction? Ideally, they > should identify themselves and participate in the discussion. > > I don’t want to speak for others but, off the top of my mind: > > - Wouter has made this point multiple times, one of which in [1]. > > - Sarven has made this point at least once in [3] (and you have +1ed that > comment). > > - Solid appears to require clients to request "WebID Profiles” using > text/turtle or application/ld+json [2] (though I am confused as to whether > they actually meant to use Content-Type rather than Accept). This doesn’t > mean we necessarily need to follow what Solid does; I’m just pointing this > out to keep track of potential breaking changes with respect to what others > are doing; interop. with the current ecosystem is also a priority. > > I can dig up more if you’d like me to, though I would prefer to let people > speak their own mind. > > Best, > Jacopo. > > [1]: https://github.com/w3c/WebID/issues/3#issuecomment-1879750583 > [2]: https://solid.github.io/webid-profile/#reading-profile > [3]: https://github.com/w3c/WebID/issues/17#issuecomment-1877196126 > > >
Received on Tuesday, 6 February 2024 09:24:35 UTC