- From: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2024 12:58:55 +0100
- To: Martynas Jusevičius <martynas@atomgraph.com>
- Cc: Jacopo Scazzosi <jacopo@scazzosi.com>, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, public-webid <public-webid@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAKaEYhJxGCE-bb_v3M3Kv3r7WQ-bTtBeVZ3VyoR0QiXw+woxZg@mail.gmail.com>
út 6. 2. 2024 v 10:24 odesílatel Martynas Jusevičius <martynas@atomgraph.com> napsal: > 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. > Indeed this is correct. I believe there's a fundamental misunderstanding going on that Marynas is expressing well Having SPARQL that is not tied to a serialization is useful, in itself. Solid could then take SPARQL and use it in its ecosystem. It could even tie SPARQL and use it with Turtle. This is the nature of additive composable specs, of which WebID should be one, and is not now, because it is not fully defined or specified. That is the heart of the problem. Specs operate on the principle of modularity and loose-coupling. Turtle doesnt need to know about SPARQL. And SPARQL doesnt need to know about Turlte. But SPARQL can be used with Turtle. Similarly WebID need not be tied to Turlte AND JSON-LD. But it MUST be defined and specified. At this point I would consider attempts to add breaking changes to WebID which add MORE serializations, and implementations details, and BEFORE the concept of WebID has been defined in a serialization neutral way harmful. You have to define and specify SPARQL before you can use it with Turtle. Or you are putting the cart before the horse. The SPARQL spec is well defined and specified. That's precisely what makes it useful. WebID cant start branching into different serialization strategies before it is defined and specified. Attempting to that will kill the project, if it hasnt already. > > > 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 11:59:14 UTC