feat: new definitions

[jacoscaz]

Hi all,

This PR aims at porting the new definitions from #37 into our working draft. Some notes:

• The group has expressed multiple times, in the past, a preference for small and focused PRs. These kinds of PRs are not my forte, to use a euphemism, so I've decided to start hyper-focused and let the group suggest further additions.

• Together with the definitions from #37, you will notice that I've also added a paragraph that defines the set of required statements that MUST appear within a WebID Profile Document. I've done so because, for some us, defining what a WebID Profile Document is implies a minimum description of how such a document may be validated in order to tell it apart from any other RDF document. You can find notes and pointers about this in #37 but I just wanted to repeat it here for simplicity.

• You will notice that I have simplified the definitions, removing things like the MUST on Turtle (which is already stated elsewhere). That is an intentional editorial choice as definitions should be concise and leave further elaboration and details for the appropriate sections.

Of course this is for everyone to review and comment upon but I'll tag those that have provided the most feedback on this topic: @kidehen @TallTed @webr3 @acoburn @woutermont and @jonassmedegaard .

EDIT 2024-02-08:

List of issues that this PR addresses, either completely or in part:

• 23

• 22

• 33

• 17

• 40

[jacoscaz]

Given that:

• This topic has been under discussion for a long time
• I've been tracking consensus on definitions in #37

I'd be inclined to set the deadline for review in two weeks from now, on 2024-02-21. However, I do acknowledge that the new requirements for the contents of a WebID Profile Document qualify as breaking and I'm open to move the deadline to four weeks from now, on 2014-03-06. IMHO, that would make for a really, really glacial pace of progress but the perception of pace is fairly subjective.

[melvincarvalho]

As stated, I am in favour of a short freeze on the evolution of this document

I would prefer instead creating a serialization neutral definition of WebID which I believe has significant mind share in the group, and then to revisit this. Or alternatively waiting until the Solid WG starts up.

I would urge the chair not to act unilaterally based on 2/4 week timelines. To slow down, define WebID, in a standalone way, which is not tied to historical baggage, serialization debates, implementation debates, and hard fork considerations.

[melvincarvalho]

the contents of a WebID Profile Document qualify as breaking

-1

Strongly opposed to breaking changes

[jacoscaz]

/chair hat on

Lots of comments and suggestions already. Thank you all! Following up to https://github.com/w3c/WebID/pull/60#issuecomment-1931500299 and given the participation, I'm setting the deadline for review on 2024-02-21.

[termontwouter]

HTML file really needs to be made non-git-managed, i.e., it should exist only as an artifact produced by CI operating on the BS file!

@TallTed, I agree. Discussing here.

[jacoscaz]

/chair hat on

Today's the deadline for review of this PR. I'll go ahead and merge as:

• It's been reviewed / approved by multiple participants.
• It's been mentioned in multiple "chair's overview" emails.
• It implements the consensus on definitions as tracked in #37.

Two strong objections have been raised, both by @melvincarvalho and both mentioned in https://github.com/w3c/WebID/pull/60#issuecomment-1931572536 (amongst other places):

I would prefer instead creating a serialization neutral definition of WebID which I believe has significant mind share in the group, and then to revisit this.

This is actually something that this PR already addresses. The new definitions are neutral WRT serialization formats. See https://github.com/w3c/WebID/pull/60/files#diff-274f5e91238718e44b429797b66dcdc21e2d576ae2e0e769f0279840e5196945R195 .

As stated, I am in favour of a short freeze on the evolution of this document.

This has been addressed multiple times, some by me and some by others.

As chair, I believe that these sustained objections have been considered and addressed adequately.