@/all The Solid Community Group's https://github.com/solid/authorization-panel/ is collecting use cases (current state: https://solid.github.io/authorization-panel/wac-ucr/ ). There is also a survey to better understand stakeholders views and interest in the use cases whether they'll implement or not. It will help us to prioritise on the requirements that the panel should work on. One does not need to be a spec implementer / developer to fill out the survey. It'd be even better to gather responses from a wide range of stakeholders to further identify privacy, security, and ethical concerns or real-world behaviour that we haven't adequately looked into - I'm certain there are many. The survey is here: https://github.com/solid/authorization-panel/blob/master/proposals/wac-ucr/uc-survey.md and we are in the process of recording the responses eg. here is mine: https://github.com/solid/authorization-panel/pull/109/files based on my own views/interests/development . You can wear whatever hat you like. Share as much or as little as you want. The point is to help develop some insights and improve.
If you plan to respond in context of a product/project you're working on, I'd suggest to coordinate with your team so that there is only one response to the survey based on that.
We are trying to also come out of the survey with a rough idea on ongoing implementations.. and whether a particular use case will have significant number of implementations when we push the spec(s) through roughly equivalent of Candidate Recommendation. We could even get a sense on why something is not supported eg. is it because it'd be hard to implement with a particular tool stack? Completely out of scope of needs? Any geopolitical restrictions? Ethical considerations? This is an open list of possibilities and the numbers alone don't capture it. So, having a brief comment helps.
@csarven Some use cases are a bit hard to describe in that format. For example, I have the use case "I want to be able to allow one person to see but not modify a single document", which is technically possible with the existing WAC system, but suddenly becomes really hard (and thus comes with risks like privilege escalation) if an access rule already exists mentioning that person and that document in addition to other persons and documents (see solid/authorization-panel#75).
How can we indicate that it would be nice if we could do the above by removing/writing only the relevant Triples, without that affecting other access. Is that even something you're looking for with this doc?
solid:instanceContainer), or in a specific document (using
solid:instance). But nothing would happen automatically; it's up to client applications respect listings in the type index, and to add their own if no listing for their data exists yet.
Due to a disagreement with Twitter on whether they should have my phone number on top of my real name, I'm revisiting mastodon, so if any of you folks are also using mastodon and wish to connect, you'll find my tech account here: https://mastodon.cloud/@SAFEpress
Mastodon has improved a lot (mainly in responsiveness and quality of the community) in three years, and there's a very nice alternative UI called Pinafore, and an associated side-bar add-on for Firefox.
Hopefully Solid can move into this space too before long. I think comparing any Solid offerings with the performance of mastodon will be a good benchmark - it is seriously responsive. I have two accounts on different instances (servers) and if I have both open and toot or delete toot on one, the feed on the other updates instantly. Same with follows/unfollows, it is impressive and a far nicer UX than twitter. I think Solid should aim to match the mastodon UX in terms of usability and responsiveness, and if it does this could help adoption as I think twitter is getting less friendly and more invasive (as to be expected).
So join me on mastodon for a play and a chat. Lots of like minded folks on there. https://mastodon.cloud/@SAFEpress