Not sure. I am non-technical - just want SAFE WebIDs to be able to work seemlessly with any/all implementations of DIDs resulting from the W3C initiative. I think that will be critical for SAFE network adoption without losing all the benefits of SAFE network.
I lied about the Solid convention for a profile doc. I don’t think it changes any of our discussion but I will go back and correct it.
I should have said:
I want to take the opportunity to answer this, now that I’m being asked. Spring came and right now I spend my days outside landscaping and cleaning up logs, twigs and branches before the green swallow it.
I don’t think it’s something that becomes “right” in the first iteration (if it was that easy, it would probably already have been done). Meaning that I think anything we come up with is just the start, and after a number of iterations and discussions, with diminishing returns, we might have a new level of understanding.
So, I want to sit down and gather my thoughts around this. Really nice topic you linked to btw.
Great Ressources, keep it up!
Shouldn’t I be able to delete any webID I created?
OK, so I have been having this in the back of my head all the time, not forgotten that I promised to give my input on this.
For I while I was thinking that so much is changing now, so I don’t know what you already might have going on. But then again, it’s better you hear what ever I have thought, regardless if you already have that covered or not.
I haven’t worked with the API in a long time now, so things are not fresh to me, and trying to come up with a comprehensible list would take a long time, risk not happening even.
So, I decided to just write down anything I can think of as soon as I think of it.
At the moment, I’m doing a bit of work involving the API, so I was reminded of this one just now:
This is a transaction.
You go to any database technology, they use terms as ‘transaction’.
Everyone knows what a transaction is.
I add one or more operations, when I commit, all or none of them will go through.
MDataEntryActionsNew is just a big questionmark. It does nothing to try convey what it basically is.
And this goes on and on for method after method, item after item.
It is like everything has been given some innovative detailed technical explanation, instead of trying to see what it most resembles in existing well known technology, and describe it using that terminology.
The cognitive load, and the steepness of the learning curve as it adds up for the entire API as a result of this, is well known among everyone who has worked with the SAFENetwork API.
Even if there are small differences, better search for the most common term normally used for something similar, and say
This is our flavor of this phenomenon / principle.
That really helps developers quickly get into the thinking, it removes tonnes of cognitive load, and maybe most importantly, it does not look entirely confusing when looking at it for the first time (and the following 30 or so times).
So, that would be the first and quickest advice I can give with regards to the API. Now that you are full on designing a lot of new things and have free hands to work with the entire API, please please give this consideration . It is very important for developer adoption.
(Maybe we should move this to its own topic somewhere?)
Awesome. Thanks for that @oetyng.
Definitely something we should be thinking about