Where communities thrive


  • Join over 1.5M+ people
  • Join over 100K+ communities
  • Free without limits
  • Create your own community
People
Repo info
Activity
  • Jul 06 14:22
    csarven commented #224
  • Jul 06 14:15

    csarven on main

    Add change-log-protocol-20211217 (compare)

  • Jul 06 12:47

    csarven on main

    Minor Init change-log (compare)

  • Jul 06 12:45

    csarven on main

    Add w3c-process reference Minor (compare)

  • Jul 06 10:56

    csarven on main

    Update reference to webarch eth… (compare)

  • Jul 05 23:59
    kjetilk commented #417
  • Jul 05 21:50
    timbl commented #417
  • Jul 05 12:29
    csarven commented #417
  • Jul 05 08:44
    csarven edited #417
  • Jul 05 08:41
    csarven labeled #417
  • Jul 05 08:41
    csarven assigned #417
  • Jul 05 08:41
    csarven opened #417
  • Jul 05 08:40

    csarven on 2022

    TR/2022/wac-20220705 (compare)

  • Jun 30 12:21
    csarven closed #416
  • Jun 30 12:21

    csarven on main

    Add server-storage-description … Merge pull request #416 from so… (compare)

  • Jun 30 12:21
    csarven labeled #416
  • Jun 30 12:21
    csarven labeled #416
  • Jun 30 12:21
    csarven opened #416
  • Jun 30 12:21
    csarven milestoned #416
  • Jun 30 12:04

    csarven on storage-description

    Add server-storage-description … (compare)

Dmitri Zagidulin
@dmitrizagidulin
oh really? is that from LDP?
Sarven Capadisli
@csarven
LDP doesn't specify the details for the representation. In fact, it doesn't even need to be in RDF. In Solid, I think we are leaning on having the details in RDF.
Dmitri Zagidulin
@dmitrizagidulin
q+
Dmitri Zagidulin
@dmitrizagidulin
q-
Sarven Capadisli
@csarven
Sarven Capadisli
@csarven
I think this PR on how constrainedBy can be used in Solid is a good start solid/specification#185 . If there is nothing out of the ordinary for the rough consensus, can we get that merged?
For Problem Details (client error), we can do another PR once we have more specifics on the message schema.
Dmitri Zagidulin
@dmitrizagidulin
@csarven what's the pain point that #185 solves?
Sarven Capadisli
@csarven
It was for issue solid/specification#44
Sarven Capadisli
@csarven
I think it would fall under the UC here: https://www.w3.org/TR/ldp-ucr/#dfn-uc1 -- access guidance, https://www.w3.org/TR/ldp-ucr/#dfn-nf1.1
Dmitri Zagidulin
@dmitrizagidulin
@csarven I guess my main question is, why is it a MUST?
(given that we don't have need for this yet, don't have vocab to define how to constrain or what to constrain, etc)
Sarven Capadisli
@csarven
@dmitrizagidulin For the constraints defined in the Solid spec, that's not much of an issue because whatever is defined in the spec will be common to all servers and clients in the ecosystem.
In the case of a response body describing the problem details, yes, it;d be necessary provide the vocab. That's covered in solid/specification#28
Sarven Capadisli
@csarven
Even just making it possible to describe the problem details can help clients without necessarily having prior knowledge of the vocab.
Dmitri Zagidulin
@dmitrizagidulin
I think what might help me is an example
because as an implementer, I'm looking at that spec text, and it says a server MUST advertise constraints, and I'm thinking.. what constraints? In what cases? and how do I express them?
Sarven Capadisli
@csarven
Say server denies an update. It can return 409 and link to the spec constraint saying that server doesn't allow client to update containment triples.
Dmitri Zagidulin
@dmitrizagidulin
so what's an example of that?
(so that I know what to return on a 409)
Sarven Capadisli
@csarven
With this specific example, it'd be https://www.w3.org/TR/ldp/#ldpc-put-mbrprops
(or whatever the URI is in the Solid spec)
Dmitri Zagidulin
@dmitrizagidulin
I see, thanks
Justin Bingham
@justinwb
@csarven i had commented on the ticket but do you assume shape validation falls into this bucket
Sarven Capadisli
@csarven
Not sure about exact categorisation. There are similar concepts in play but I'd say that SV is possibly a specific kind of a constraint (ie. linked via constrainedBy). Besides that, constrainedBy can handle HTTP, authn/z based constraints, in addition to data.
Comes back around to what I've asked several times about the relationship/diff with solid:shape...
Justin Bingham
@justinwb
@csarven are you good for session today?
Sarven Capadisli
@csarven
Yea.
Justin Bingham
@justinwb
:+1:
Sarven Capadisli
@csarven
solid/specification#187 is an important one. Reviews would be great and super helpful.
Justin Bingham
@justinwb
will do!
Sarven Capadisli
@csarven
@acoburn Noted your preference. Just want to be clear that the PR captures the rough consensus - and there was quite a bit of gaps/unknowns all around DELETE (as you know from the issues).
Sarven Capadisli
@csarven
@namedgraph_twitter Do you use acl:accessTo with 1 or n?
Sarven Capadisli
@csarven
Do you use acl:default ? Can a resource inherit an ACL instead of having its own?
Martynas Jusevicius
@namedgraph_twitter
you mean acl:accessTo with one or multiple values?
as a general case multiple
we don't use acl:default
Sarven Capadisli
@csarven
How about own ACL or inheritance?
Martynas Jusevicius
@namedgraph_twitter
what do you mean with "own ACL"?
Sarven Capadisli
@csarven
When a resource is deleted, do you clean-up eg. remove an associated ACL?
Link rel=acl foo.acl
or however you associate - data level.
Martynas Jusevicius
@namedgraph_twitter
we mostly use acl:accessToClass
acl:accessTo only with "singleton" system resources
with acl:accessToClass there's no cleanup that needs to be done when an instance goes away
Sarven Capadisli
@csarven
I presume somewhere you have foo rel=acl foo.acl . What happens to foo.acl (and say it uses acl:accessTo foo) if foo is deleted?
Martynas Jusevicius
@namedgraph_twitter
we don't :)
why should we?
Sarven Capadisli
@csarven
Can a client discover a resource's ACL so that it can update?