Good news everyone!
We're in contact with the W3C Credentials CG and the chairs are discussing coordinating introductory presentations from each group to each group in order to jump start collaboration -- this will likely happen in February.
We may be able to put two sessions on the same day with breaks or do it on different dates. February 17 and 24 appear to be the next possible dates; Solid CG has a meeting slot on Wednesday at 16:00-17:00 CET and Credentials CG has its at 19:00-20:00 CET, so we can reuse them or come up with something else that works better.
The format of the sessions will be roughly that each group gives an intro their area / work-items and have a Q&A (exact timing needs to be worked out but assume ~1h for now). Sessions will be minuted and the audio may be recorded. We can arrange future sessions to dive deeper on any topic.
From our end, I propose that we cover our work along these lines (DRAFT - let's update together):
Again, I don't mean to exclude anyone so please take above as just suggestions and if I've overlooked anyone or would like to be more involved, say so. Folks in brackets can jump in.. or alternates if people can't make it?
(Tim, the "Protocol" bit will leave the details on identity, authn/z to others)
What questions on the Credentials work would you like answered? We already have some issues documented in some of our repositories but I suggest to create new ones as well. We can compile a list and pass it to the Credentials CG prior to the meeting day. It'll be useful for us to record/track for consideration in the Solid ecosystem. Suggestions on areas we should touch:
<WebID>as a Class... and wrote "an Agent" to hint at the class.. a person, an org.. a software agent.. as the definition of solid:account says "A solid account belonging to an Agent." .. so, yes, foaf:Agent, schema:SoftwareAgent, vCard:WebId fits.
:point_up: January 4, 2021 9:43 PM
Zero: Stop thinking in terms of LDP
Btw. I think one should not stop thinking it terms of LDP, rather think in terms of refinements of LDP. There's a lot of work that went into LDP (5 years with major players, a test suite and a spec) and we should not dismiss that work.
Those points by @acoburn show Solid be an extension of LDP. (And one of those points I would say needs to be very carefully phrased as it could be problematic.)