Re: Observations on WebID definition and specification

pá 9. 2. 2024 v 10:54 odesílatel Ruben Taelman <Ruben.Taelman@ugent.be>
napsal:

> 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.
>
Hi Ruben, I concur with the essence of your observation.

It's my perspective that the current dialogue around enforcing "MUST on
Turtle and JSON-LD on publishers" may not accurately reflect a broad
consensus, even among the more active participants in this CG. The
narrative appears, in my view, to be significantly influenced by a limited
number of voices, potentially representing the interests of a small number
of, or singular, entity, rather than the collective.

This situation underscores the importance of a balanced and inclusive
approach that considers the diverse needs and constraints of all
stakeholders. I share your concern regarding the potential for a premature
convergence on specific solution, which could lead to a hard fork of a
system that has remained stable over an extended period

I remain hopeful that through thoughtful dialogue and a commitment to
inclusivity, we can navigate towards a consensus that honors the principle
of orthogonality between WebID and RDF serialization. Such an approach
would ensure that our specifications remain robust, flexible, and capable
of adapting to the evolving web ecosystem.


>
> 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.
> >
> >
>
>