How to move forward

Hi all,

Insofar as I can see, we seem to be split across two different ways to move forward:

1. Primary WebID spec accompanied by feature-based Extension Profiles (WebID-TLS, WebID-OIDC, ...), which evolved from the superspec/subspec proposal
2. Iterating on the current specification by clarifying and/or narrowing scope and/or disambiguating

As summarized by Melvin, option 1. has received some positive feedback:

> Proposal:
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webid/2023Jul/0056.html
> 
> Multiple +1s:
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webid/2023Jul/0065.html
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webid/2023Jul/0057.html
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webid/2023Jul/0058.html
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webid/2023Jul/0061.html

Further positive feedback for option 1. stems from my presentation as chair in https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webid/2023Nov/0121.html .

Given the positive feedback to option 1., I took a stab at it in https://github.com/w3c/WebID/pull/27 . That PR ultimately got rejected but producing it was very instructive nonetheless. In particular, there were two main kinds of objections:

- Process: many of us would rather see changes made through small, individual PRs
- Merit: some of us believe that the existing ED only needs minor revisions to become acceptable

When it comes to process, I remain personally unconvinced that small PRs are a good way forward, particularly given the last few days of activity, but as chair I’m happy to switch gear.

As for merit, though, this is where option 2. comes in. I’m not the best person to summarize it as it does not lead to a spec I could actually use but I think Kingsley does it well, at least for one possible version of it:

> 1. Rename the current specification e.g., "WebID Profile Document Specification for {Specific Content-Type} using {Specific Vocab Terms}
> 2. Fix content of the current specification by incorporating JSON-LD as an alternative content-type option alongside Turtle; while also incorporating equivalent Schema.org term -- thereby allowing implementers pick their preference


Now, regardless of how much work is needed to get to the final results and how such work should be organized and carried out, option 1. and 2. are mutually exclusive. We can’t do both at the same time. 

So, my questions to you all:

1. Which option do you prefer?
2. Would you still consider the other option acceptable?

Note that this is not a call for a vote, formal or otherwise. It is just an attempt to figure out whether we can converge towards a shared end goal and where that might be.

Best,
J.

Received on Friday, 5 January 2024 14:22:54 UTC