change name and mission of the WG

[pchampin]

• This is a big PR (sorry).

I changed the name of the WG and deliverable to PUMPKIN (working title).

I mostly touched the first sections (Mission, Motivation & Background, Scope, Deliverables). I refactored the text to make it more about the problem and less about the proposed solution. For the most, it is a reorganization of text that was already there, sometimes slightly rephrased, sometimes moved around (especially between the Motivation and Scope section).

The text that is really new compared to the previous version is highlighted in green to make it easier to review.

[melvincarvalho]

Generally like it. 3 comments:

• Consider another codename than PUMPKIN -- perhaps ask the mailing list?
• Have a compelling common understanding on Mission, as to what solid/pumpkin is, and what it does
• Consider removing some items, as I think it's taking on too much outside of the core, which will be hard enough to get to REC

[TallTed]

For what it's worth, PUMPKIN has a distinguished history as a codename, having served the first RDFCore working group as a codename for "node" which didn't then have a proper name.

[elf-pavlik]

Consider another codename than PUMPKIN -- perhaps ask the mailing list?

As I understand, the whole purpose of using placeholder PUMPKIN is not to get sidetracked into bikesheding the name at this point.

[melvincarvalho]

As I understand, the whole purpose of using placeholder PUMPKIN is not to get sidetracked into bikesheding the name at this point.

I can live with pumpkin, but it's raised a few eyebrows, and caused confusion because it sounds, imho, a bit unserious.

I could be wrong in that evaluation. Names can be important as they project an image, and choosing a name for something CAN be bike-shedding, but isnt always bike-shedding

Let me give an example response from someone that has followed Solid casually for a long time:

Obviously not the Cinderella story they expected

Some possible suggestions:

ACORN: Reflecting potential and growth, this name suggests the beginnings of something significant and expansive, much like the objectives of the SOLID project.

OAK: Symbolizing strength and stability, "OAK" could represent the robustness and reliability you aim for in your new spec.

IVY: Signifying growth and connection, "IVY" could represent the interlinked data and relationships facilitated by SOLID principles.

BEACON: Indicating guidance and illumination, this name suggests the spec's role in navigating new directions in web development.

VERTEX: Representing a peak or the highest point, "VERTEX" could symbolize the ambition of the SOLID project to achieve new heights in web standards and interoperability.

ORIGIN: Highlighting the foundational aspect of the project, this name suggests a new beginning or source from which further development can grow.

HORIZON: Signifying the exploration of new frontiers, "HORIZON" reflects the forward-looking nature of the SOLID project and its commitment to innovation.

Anyway I'll leave this as food for thought. I dont know how long PUMPKIN is going to stick around, but perhaps worth a quick thread on the mailing list.

[melvincarvalho]

@timbl the innovation of Solid is to make the web Turing Complete, but no one is saying that. Once the web is Turing Complete, then, over the course of time, it can be pushed to its limits. There is a natural tendency for technologies to be pushed to their limits over time. I'm sure you know this, but it's not that well articulated. By making the the web Turing complete, any application you can imagine can be built. That's the innovation, and why it should go to WG and be a REC. Cut out what's unnecessary, and keep this one magical property.