- From: Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
- Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2022 12:58:01 +0900
- To: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
- Cc: Amy Guy <rhiaro@w3.org>, Chief of Staff TBL <cos@timbl.com>, Daniel Appelquist <dan@torgo.com>, Osmar Olivo <oz@inrupt.com>, Public TAG List <www-tag@w3.org>, Ruben Verborgh <ruben.verborgh@ugent.be>, Sarven Capadisli <info@csarven.ca>, Timea Turdean <timea.turdean@inrupt.com>
Hello Tim, Dan, others, This may be only marginally related, but at the IETF, there's a new mailing list on "More Instant Messaging Interoperability" (see https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/Mimi and https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-mahy-mimi-problem-outline-00.html, https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-mahy-mimi-content-00.html, https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-mahy-mimi-identity-00.html). Also related is the SPIN draft (https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-rosenberg-dispatch-spin-00.txt), which is currently discussed on the dispatch@ietf.org mailing lists. Regards, Martin. On 2022-07-25 00:33, Dan Brickley wrote: > (I believe this needs a tracking issue in the TAG github, presumably > https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues ). > > On Sun, 24 Jul 2022 at 14:18, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org> wrote: > >> Solid is a growing protocol/movement, and the tech parts of it — the Solid >> Project — are basically a W3C Community group. >> >> Solid adds things which the web needed but hadn’t yet standardized, >> including global single sign-in, standard access control, and a fast API >> for data read-write between an app and a store (a Solid Pod). By making >> the API to the store universal, it means you don’t have to change the store >> when you make a new app, which completely changes the architecture and >> markets and business models which are possible. It also leaves individuals >> empowered rather than exploited. > > > Are you also open to sympathetically skeptical comments on how the Solid > architecture does or doesn’t support these incredibly ambitious goals? > > I have this hard to articulate sense that the Solid project is tying itself > very tightly to one specific design for fine grained data interop, > potentially at the expense of its role as a unifying “rallying cry” for > users-first platform design, data control/access, portability, > transparency, openness etc. These are values that have been shared across > diverse groups who have been working on different (if hopefully > complementary) pieces of the puzzle, and exploring different tradeoffs and > priorities. > > I could well imagine that Solid’s formal protocol specs check out ok at > face value, i.e. “yup, it does what it says on the tin”, while still > meriting serious discussion on whether this very technical use of RDF will > get the web ecosystem to where you want it to be. > > Best, > > Dan > > > >> Would it be reasonable for the TAG to review the architecture at a high >> level, or review the protocol? It would be useful to get a knowledge of >> the Solid stack in neighboring parts of the technology. >> >> (A separate future question are the client-client interop specs which are >> needed for interop between apps, such as contacts, chat, etc.) >> >> See https://solidproject.org/. https://solidproject.org/TR is where the >> specs end up after their github-based proces. >> >> Best wishes >> >> Tim BL >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > -- Prof. Dr.sc. Martin J. Dürst Department of Intelligent Information Technology College of Science and Engineering Aoyama Gakuin University Fuchinobe 5-1-10, Chuo-ku, Sagamihara 252-5258 Japan
Received on Monday, 25 July 2022 03:58:21 UTC