Re: Observations on WebID definition and specification

Hi all,

I just want to briefly chime in and say that the “MUST on Turtle and JSON-LD on publishers”
may represent consensus among the loudest and most present voices in this CG,
but it may not necessarily represent what less vocal people may be looking for.

To give an example, I dropped out of the conversation a long time ago due to the large number of e-mails coming from this group,
and my inability to dedicate sufficient time to read every e-mail.

But I strongly agree with Martynas’ comment on that WebID should be orthogonal to what RDF serialization is used.
WebID and RDF serialzation apply to different locations when observed in a layered structure.
It’s like expecting HTTP to suddenly start requiring at least WiFi 802.11ac to be used, these are orthogonal things.

Kind regards,
Ruben Taelman

> On 9 Feb 2024, at 10:38, Jacopo Scazzosi <jacopo@scazzosi.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Wouter, hi all,
> 
> Chiming in real quick just to give some perspective:
> 
>> If it turns out that the group indeed differs on these aims, some of us might be better off expressing their own desires in another protocol.
> 
> Let’s keep in mind that the proposal with the largest consensus, so far, is the MUST on Turtle and JSON-LD on publishers, which is a compromise that allows different sensibilities to meet somewhere in the middle while making for a solid, testable, well-defined spec.
> 
> I am personally more open to Martynas’s proposal than Wouter and many others, clearly, but I just wanted to clarify that it is not the direction in which we’re currently headed. It’s easy to loose track of how much we’ve roughly settled on given how much time we spend - rightfully so - discussing what separates us.
> 
> Apologies for waxing a little philosophical :)
> 
> Best,
> J.
> 
>

Received on Friday, 9 February 2024 09:53:59 UTC