Where communities thrive


  • Join over 1.5M+ people
  • Join over 100K+ communities
  • Free without limits
  • Create your own community
People
Repo info
Activity
  • Dec 05 20:22
    kjetilk transferred #190
  • Dec 04 12:53
    csarven commented #196
  • Dec 04 12:38
    csarven commented #157
  • Dec 02 12:35
    csarven commented #196
  • Nov 30 00:31
    kjetilk commented #195
  • Nov 29 14:44
    csarven commented #195
  • Nov 29 14:39
    csarven commented #195
  • Nov 29 14:00
    csarven commented #195
  • Nov 29 01:23
    kjetilk commented #195
  • Nov 28 23:35
    csarven commented #195
  • Nov 26 22:25
    kjetilk closed #159
  • Nov 26 22:25
    kjetilk commented #159
  • Nov 22 15:10
    kjetilk transferred #123
  • Nov 05 11:34
    csarven commented #134
  • Nov 05 09:41
    csarven commented #134
  • Nov 05 09:34
    csarven commented #134
  • Nov 05 09:30
    csarven commented #134
  • Nov 04 20:01

    kjetilk on master

    Explain current document status. Merge pull request #207 from so… (compare)

  • Nov 04 20:01
    kjetilk closed #207
  • Nov 04 14:09
    kjetilk review_requested #207
Martynas Jusevicius
@namedgraph_twitter
because it's more general than Solid
Dmitri Zagidulin
@dmitrizagidulin
so, that issue #51 is where things stand (open and pending, at the moment), seems like.
Martynas Jusevicius
@namedgraph_twitter
i guess
it's not a big change really, to introduce a namespace
but nobody seems to care
Dmitri Zagidulin
@dmitrizagidulin
yeah, we've been very slow about updating vocabs/ontologies
I suspect part of it has to do with - who has write access to those, and the general governance process, has been unclear
Martynas Jusevicius
@namedgraph_twitter
the point of OWL ontologies is that they are components and import each other
Dmitri Zagidulin
@dmitrizagidulin
now that governance has been formalized, Panels/workgroups assigned, etc, I think you'll see progress on that front
Martynas Jusevicius
@namedgraph_twitter
and not piling all semi-related terms onto the same namespace URI
Dmitri Zagidulin
@dmitrizagidulin
agree, yeah
Martynas Jusevicius
@namedgraph_twitter
for once we agree :)
Dmitri Zagidulin
@dmitrizagidulin
heheheh :)
Michiel de Jong
@michielbdejong
@Otto-AA oh sorry right, i did mis read your questions. Yes, multiple acl:accessTo statements about the same authorisation node are possible, but what matters is that you check whether or not the authorisation node gives access to the resource from which you followed the link. So if you look at /folder/ and see a link header that points you to /.one-big-acl-doc then you need to look only at authorisation nodes in there that have #node acl:accessTo </folder/>, and not to any other authorisation nodes that may exist in that /.one-big-acl-doc
i’ll copy that answer to the issue
Michiel de Jong
@michielbdejong
answered your other question on the ticket, too
sorry that i hadn’t answered them earlier! :)
Sarven Capadisli
@csarven
@namedgraph_twitter re https://gitter.im/solid/solid-spec?at=5d7ff6712e8fd94630e4817a , you're right but that doesn't mean that it can't be squatted for the time being :) ns/auth/acl is not necessarily "complete" by any sense or formally referred to in any W3C (or other) spec as far I'm aware. So, there is no reason why it can't be updated to include things like trustedApp or not. Whether trustedApp is a good/bad idea is a separate issue and we can address that through open discussion and implementation experience. Clearly there is some interest (a the very least) to know what's a "trusted" app. And the notion of "application" is not something entirely unique to Solid either. It is virtually everywhere. Again, we can discuss its semantics and what it all entails. Would you like to chime through the Solid panels? If you have technical concerns about it, it'd really valuable to know and have it documented so that we can have a better understanding.
Sarven Capadisli
@csarven
@namedgraph_twitter If there isn't an issue for https://gitter.im/solid/solid-spec?at=5d7ff71b62bfc95112fe042e can you please create it? Perhaps in https://github.com/solid/process/blob/master/panels.md#app-authorization 's repo or https://github.com/solid/vocab is fine too I think.
Martynas Jusevicius
@namedgraph_twitter
@csarven my issue is that W3C had published the ACL long before there was Solid and now Solid acts as if it has authority over it
if it should be discussed, it should be on a W3C forum
not unilaterally on Solid's wiki
and i'm pretty confident that while the ACL terms are widely used, Solid-introduced ones such as trustedApp are not, because they address much more specific, and likely orthogonal issue, than the ACL terms
Sarven Capadisli
@csarven
@namedgraph_twitter I don't believe "Solid" has authority over it. W3C (Team) or any group (usually WG, CG, but not strictly!) coordinating with them can probably update the ns. It is used out there I suppose but I would suspect that people are trusting it as they do with any other ns under w3.org. That is, things can change.
Like I said, trustedApp can find a home, but please raise it somewhere so it is properly tracked. Discussing it in chats is not going to change anything.
And the the term being squatting for the time being has no official stance whatsoever. The ACL vocab does not currently contain traustedApp so I wouldn't worry about it.
Aside: I don't think "trustedApp" is so far out that it doesn't belong in the ACL vocab either. I've seen worse.
Martynas Jusevicius
@namedgraph_twitter
so what do you propose i change?
i can do a PR for the web-access-control-spec re. trustedApp namespace
but i'm not gonna look for and replace all its usages
Sarven Capadisli
@csarven
I'd suggest to first make an issue and outline the case. Give others a chance to respond and move the discussion forward. If need be, PR can follow that.
Arne Hassel
@megoth_twitter
I think it's important to note that acl:trustedApp was merely intended as an interim solution for Solid - uncertain that we need to spec it in the long term...
Michiel de Jong
@michielbdejong
Jordan Shurmer
@JordanShurmer
it's still true that every Solid server is an LDP server right? I.e. part of implementing solid is implementing LDP?
hmm, I'll move this to the new chat room :D
Michiel de Jong
@michielbdejong
@JordanShurmer only the BasicContainer part of LDP, not the other two container types
Jordan Shurmer
@JordanShurmer
:thumbsup: thanks
Mike Adams
@mikeadams1
@JordanShurmer our brains may be soft wired because I have been working on warp for the past three hours
Mike Adams
@mikeadams1
Warp is a great app
Jordan Shurmer
@JordanShurmer
warp?
I am going to pimp it out a little, if thats even possible but, I think I can.
Mike Adams
@mikeadams1
@timbl suggested that maybe we should be looking at combining apps to make things. That is what I am trying to do.
take a piece from here and a piece from there, that sort of thing so, it requires me to become familiar with almost everything working with solid currently.
Mike Adams
@mikeadams1
I am thinking that there are several apps I would like to use from one location, so Iframe's really make great use of combining applications in one place. Something like https://index.inrupt.net/
Sarven Capadisli
@csarven
@JordanShurmer re https://gitter.im/solid/solid-spec?at=5daf9ff914d55a37855abf5d , LDP describes behaviour for the most part optional. Solid will set specific constraints and clarify or strengthen the requirements from LDP. For example, LDP doesn't require any specific type of container to be implemented however it prescribes how they should behave if adopted. See also solid/specification#47 for containers for the upcoming Solid spec.
Jordan Shurmer
@JordanShurmer
thanks, makes sense
DJ Tinkers
@TinkersDj_twitter
SOLID as in that no dependency thingy?

Anyone interested in an opensource project?

Spec oriented development speeds up programming by generating code based on tests/specs. Tests required will be the same or less specs as a normal developer writes.

https://github.com/Neur0plasticity/spec-dev

MSG me if interested