Sounds like the path forward is something like:
Given: an RDF based ontology (ActivityStreams) and a linked-data-sharing protocol (ActivityPub) lets us build a data graph that is federated between machines…
1) Enable the ActivityPub community to adopt ontologies beyond ActivityStreams
Develop a technical process and the community culture that allows extending ActivityStreams in a meaningful way to the ActivityPub community, so existing applications can adopt (like Pleroma Article typed) or ignore (like Mastodon’s rich text) them. Right now, it is ad-hoc custom additions that are not readily discoverable and leads to broken cross-app experiences with no culture for recourse.
This means each application is only providing a “limited view” into the whole federated graph and cannot hope to render every RDF type to a user.
2) Shift towards adopting the C2S model
This aligns with a “pod” idea: each person at home has a big dumb S2S brick to simply federated and uses C2S native or web apps to actually manipulate the graph.
Now! Having said all that…
Do I think Solid will actually, fundamentally, change the nature of the web? No.
Instead of semantically meaningful markup (HTML) shared federatively (via HTTP) with links to other markup (literally, links) amongst a connected group of nodes (web servers today), we have semantically meaningful markup (JSON-LD) shared federatively (via ActivityPub) with links to other markup (the LD in JSON-LD) amongst a connected group of nodes (Fediverse servers) but now with someone telling you how to design and build your app: having data at your home.
I’m not convinced corporations will listen: it fundamentally is competing alongside offerings by corporations that show how easy it is to build apps on their platform. It will take some kind of force (populism, regulation, economic) to truly make a difference – but it won’t be because of the technology.
I know we no longer have a loud voice in our community caring about security and privacy, and I don’t have it in me to be that person. So I’ll just say that the vaporic pitch of Solid means there’s nothing materially there to assuage my fear that Solid simply isn’t ambitious enough to fundamentally change the privacy/security concerns of today’s internet.
Instead, I would rather efforts include the decentralized and distributed nature of linked data - and I do mean including solutions like “someone else has my data (but they can’t ever read it or know what it is)”, which is already at odds with Solid’s pitch. Prematurely excluding solutions that are OCAP and decentralized+distributed is a mistake, one I’m happy to be in a minority complaining about.
Don’t let me stop y’all from progress, and thanks for hearing my objection. (Typed on a phone, which autocorrects to create a lot of grammar errors, sorry)