search

w3c / WebID

https://www.w3.org/groups/cg/webid
MIT License
14 stars 7 forks source link

feat: changes title to Web Identity (WebID) 1.0 #71

Closed jacoscaz closed 3 months ago

jacoscaz commented 5 months ago

This PR changes the title of the identity spec as per #54 .

As this change would have no practical consequence, deadline for review is set to 2024-04-08.

Links to the rendered files:

melvincarvalho commented 5 months ago

Noticing the removal of names like Henry Story and Tim Berners-Lee, replaced by yours with "version=1.0," prompts concern. If I may, with all due humility, inquire: do all original contributors consent to these changes? Creating a new specification is within your purview, yet this approach may appear as misattribution. Deeply regrettable, if so. I must express strong reservation.

jacoscaz commented 5 months ago

/chair hat on

@melvincarvalho while I don't particularly appreciate the subtext in your comment, you do make a good point. There's no trace of Henry in the working draft as it stands right now and that's something that needs to be rectified right away. I'm going to list him as a past chair (was he also an editor?) but two questions for you:

melvincarvalho commented 5 months ago

I think the main problem here is that of versioning. WebID 1.0 ED IMHO should belong to Henry, TimBL and Andrei forever.

A fork with a higher version number would make it clear it's new work. Trying to keep 1.0 and change the names and text, is problematic, IMHO.

melvincarvalho commented 5 months ago
  • Do you think it would be a good idea and would you be willing to work on a PR that extends the "acknowledgements" section with a few lines dedicated to Henry?

Yes, that could work, but I would much rather do it under a version 1.1 which would keep a clear delineation between the version worked on by Henry, Timbl and Andrei, and the new 2024 version.

This would also mirror the approach of JSON-LD 1.0 and 1.1 where JSON-LD 1.1 was an incremental improvement on 1.0 but 1.0 remained intact.

TallTed commented 5 months ago

@jacoscaz wrote in https://github.com/w3c/WebID/pull/71#issue-2203834924 --

As this change would have no practical consequence, deadline for review is set to 2024-04-08.

I'm afraid "practical consequence" is in the mind of the reader. Particularly problematic here is that the title of this PR suggests there is one change being made, i.e., the document title, but the first comment flags something we should all be aware of, that being the changes in Editor, Author, and Previous Editor lists, which should have been at least mentioned in the initial comment, the details, of this PR.

@jacoscaz wrote in https://github.com/w3c/WebID/pull/71#issue-2203834924 --

Links to the rendered files:

It would be hugely helpful if there could be a DIFF rendering, similar to that produced by PR-Preview. It is far from trivial to mentally compare

Responding to the full thread above --

My first thought is that we should list Henry (and possibly others) as an Author (of which there may be any number). He produced (with, as he would have been first to say, input from a number of others) a lot of the body text in the 2014 ED upon which our current work is based.

We could instead (I would not say also) list him as a Previous Editor (of which there may be a modestly large number, for documents with a long development history), as he is, through no fault, not a current Editor (of which there are usually 2-4 per document, as it progresses on the Rec Track).

(It is perhaps worth noting that group Chairs are usually not Editors of the documents produced by the same group, partly because of the substantial workload of both roles, and partly because such dual service can make it extra challenging to walk the tightropes of facilitating group discussion and applying group decisions without imposing one's own perspective, among other reasons. I am not saying that @jacoscaz should immediately step out of one of these roles, partly as we are still working as a CG and that division of roles is more common to WGs, but it might be something worth considering in due time.)

The last few comments here suggest that I need to again make clear that the 2014 ED is NOT a v1.0 of anything! As its SotD states, it is an internal draft document [of the W3C WebID Incubator Group ...] and may not even end up being officially published. It is inappropriate to cite this document as other than work in progress."

I will also note that calling it the "version worked on by Henry, Timbl and Andrei" suggests that those three were isolated somewhere when they together produced the 2014 ED, while ignoring and discounting technical and textual contributions from a number of other people, including me. I do not consider this labeling accurate nor appropriate.

melvincarvalho commented 5 months ago

Perhaps it's a good idea to wait until we get a new chair/editor, before merging the current set of PRs.

TallTed commented 5 months ago

[@melvincarvalho] the approach of JSON-LD 1.0 and 1.1

and

I'd much rather this had a higher version, such as 1.1

JSON-LD is a substantially different case, not least because JSON-LD 1.0 is a full REC (TR), having passed through PR after CR emerged from ED.

WebID has still not yet reached CR, never mind the later stages, and the WebID 2014 ED should not ever be referred to as if it had, which calling the 2014 ED "WebID 1.0" or calling the current work "WebID 1.1" would effectively do.