Terrible seem apt. As proposals go, this seems to border on the insanely naive. It’s impossible to find in the impenetrable marketing speak, but presumably the

Terrible seem apt. As proposals go, this seems to border on the insanely naive. It’s impossible to find in the impenetrable marketing speak, but presumably the backend here is some off the shelf LDP? Existing LDPs tend towards being profoundly unscalable; typically the number of clients they can handle without choking per second is in the low single digits. All of the implementations I’ve seen are more concerned with adherence to an ill-conceived shitpile of “standardize-first, use-case later” W3C standards than ever tackling the core performance and protocol problems. And I cannot imagine a worse choice for presenting Linked Data to the modern web than RDF. It’s ugly, dog-slow to parse, and is INCAPABLE of representing a simple ordered list without significantly painful work-arounds that practically by their nature force N+1 queries on to clients. JSON-LD solves a lot of this and has existed for years. And then we’ve got yet another attempt to pretend the W3C’s WebACL spec is anything other than a lunatic’s fever-dream of a UI and UX nightmare. We’ll apparently just expose it to end users to let them manage their data. That’ll end well. The Semantic Web Community’s biggest problem is that they think continually recreating “existing thing but with as many of these awful W3C standards as they can shoehorn in” is some kind of Good in and of itself, no matter how bad the resulting user experience would be.