Where communities thrive


  • Join over 1.5M+ people
  • Join over 100K+ communities
  • Free without limits
  • Create your own community
People
Repo info
Activity
  • 17:36
    RubenVerborgh commented #330
  • 17:33
    RubenVerborgh commented #227
  • 17:02
    jeff-zucker commented #227
  • 16:45
    jeff-zucker commented #227
  • 14:20

    csarven on main

    Minor (compare)

  • 13:04
    kjetilk commented #330
  • 11:44
    bblfish commented #325
  • 11:31
    bblfish commented #325
  • 10:45
    bblfish commented #325
  • 10:43
    bblfish commented #325
  • 10:09

    csarven on main

    Add W3C CEPC to Topics (compare)

  • 09:59
    RubenVerborgh commented #325
  • 09:49
    bblfish commented #325
  • 09:48
    bblfish commented #325
  • 09:44
    bblfish commented #325
  • 09:44
    bblfish commented #325
  • 09:43
    bblfish commented #325
  • 09:40
    bblfish commented #325
  • 09:38
    bblfish commented #325
  • 09:15
    bblfish commented #325
Justin Bingham
@justinwb
like join the w3c credentials cg in addition to solid cg?
or at least one
Sarven Capadisli
@csarven
At least one.
Henry Story
@bblfish
Oh, I see. A lot of preparatory work then. :-)
Justin Bingham
@justinwb
cool - i can assist with you and @bblfish on authz if you can add me to that one.
Matthias Evering
@ewingson
@justinwb am inactive member of authn and would like to be fly on the wall
Alain Bourgeois
@bourgeoa
@csarven That is very good news. Hope that it will make solid/specification and solid ecosystem better known and can receive a broader approval.
Dmitri Zagidulin
@dmitrizagidulin
@csarven very cool
BenoƮt Alessandroni
@balessan
Interested in attending the call at least
Fred Gibson
@gibsonf1
is there ontology for a solid pod user, something like solid:User ? (I'd like to have the various required properties needed for a user use this class as the domain)
Fred Gibson
@gibsonf1
For now we've made 2 new classes
neo:solid-user  --> rdfs:subClassOf  neo:ldp-user  --> rdfs:subClassOf pext:User --> rdf:subClassOf foaf:Agent
the second ldp-user was to capture the ldp:inpox property as common to both ldp and solid users
Sarven Capadisli
@csarven
I don't understand what's needed / use case.
There is http://www.w3.org/ns/solid/terms#account
Sarven Capadisli
@csarven
Oh nm, apparently it is already up. Thanks..
Fred Gibson
@gibsonf1
@csarven I need to have a class that has domain of the property solid:account as well as the other properties such as preference files, trusted apps, type indexes. These I think are properties of the agent using the account, so to declare these properties as a domain of a class, we need a class for a solid user and I think also an ldp user as ldp:inbox would have domain of ldp:inbox, and the solid user would inherit that
solid:User would be nice to have
I guess I'm basically trying to complete this triple: solid:account rdfs:domain ?x
the range is easy solid:Account
Sarven Capadisli
@csarven
<WebID>
an Agent
Fred Gibson
@gibsonf1
My understanding from tbl is that the webid is actually a url string, so you wouldn't say that the user is a type of WebId with properties like having storage
Tim Berners-Lee
@timbl
Yes, the webids of people are stored in vCard as vCard :url with type vCard:WebId
Tim Berners-Lee
@timbl
We have a problem that we have dropped solud discovery it seems. It is the first client-client spec so in a wag the most urgent after the solid protocol. We have chat apps and contacts stuff which uses the type indexes to find chats and address books etc through the type indexes and that spec is small but important.
It should be presented to the VC folks and linked from the ecosystem.
Sarven Capadisli
@csarven
@gibsonf1 I obviously didn't mean <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.
Henry Story
@bblfish

:point_up: January 4, 2021 9:43 PM
@csarven wrote:

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.

Pete Edwards
@edwardsph
WAC question: from the spec (albeit a draft version) is seems to me that the acl:default predicate is only applicable in a container ACL and its target can only be a container. Is that correct? Does it have meaning in a non-container resource's ACL and is it an error or just redundant if found there?
Sarven Capadisli
@csarven
@timbl Not dropped. Perhaps didn't get the original documentation/spec into PR. Can follow up.
@bblfish Not sure I'd call it refinement because we're not merely extending LDP. That was never the case. Original understanding perhaps required LDP but that was never really the case.. not even the implementations actually conformed to LDP. I'm all for alignment as much as possible but I don't think we need to be boxed by it either.
Henry Story
@bblfish
Trellis explicitly implements LDP.
I worked on LDP, I know what is going on. And many people do.
Perhaps you could write up a document as to where Solid diverges rather than complements LDP, so we could understand why and where to be careful.
Sarven Capadisli
@csarven
@edwardsph range is Container.. I think I wrote a bit of that here https://github.com/solid/specification/issues/193#issuecomment-679012925 ... but let me come back to this.. need to re-read/confirm..
Pete Edwards
@edwardsph
@sarven I guessed that would be the range but it is not defined in the schema at https://www.w3.org/ns/auth/acl. Probably a simple omission. The issue you referenced is helpful.
Henry Story
@bblfish

@csarven wrote:

@bblfish Sure https://gitter.im/solid/specification?at=5ff399e18bb734746973c257

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.)

Sarven Capadisli
@csarven
@edwardsph Ignore the bit on delete at the bottom of that comment I linked to..
elf Pavlik
@elf-pavlik

We have a problem that we have dropped solud discovery it seems. It is the first client-client spec so in a wag the most urgent after the solid protocol. We have chat apps and contacts stuff which uses the type indexes to find chats and address books etc through the type indexes and that spec is small but important.

discovery is included in draft from interoperability panel, especially:

both aim to take into account access control in process of data discovery

big batch of updates is coming in solid/data-interoperability-panel#71 (you can see rendered preview)
Sarven Capadisli
@csarven
@elf-pavlik That's not what Tim is talking about.
elf Pavlik
@elf-pavlik

We have chat apps and contacts stuff which uses the type indexes to find chats and address books etc through the type indexes

I thought it refers to https://github.com/solid/solid/blob/master/proposals/data-discovery.md#type-index-registry

Sarven Capadisli
@csarven
Your response doesn't.
elf Pavlik
@elf-pavlik
Applications can discover kinds of data they are authorized to access (chats projects, etc.) using data registrations. I think that covers requirements that type indexes were trying to address.
2 replies
Sarven Capadisli
@csarven
If I'm not mistaken, Tim is concerned that we don't have data-discovery.md in the spec (yet).. considering we have some public implementations of it.
elf Pavlik
@elf-pavlik
I recall Michiel de Jong proposing to just copy over old draft and iterating on that, but I thought we decided not do do it this way. I pointed relevant working in Interoperability Panel since to my understanding it will cover same requirements without the limitations of type indexes from the old draft.
maybe @justinwb has some input on how Data Registration relates to Type Indexes
justinwb @justinwb just getting back on - reading back through the thread
Justin Bingham
@justinwb
Okay so first and foremost, the two are not mutually exclusive, so I want to make sure we avoid looking at one scheme as competing with, or replacing the other.
The discovery approach documented at https://github.com/solid/solid/blob/master/proposals/data-discovery.md that leverages type indexes has one responsibility - it "provides a way for a client application to discover where a user keeps data relevant to this app". It is designed to (primitively) query for and find types of data an app needs.
The pertinent segment of the application interoperability specification is Data Registration. A data registry is a place to store your data, organized by type. The purpose of that organization is principally for validation, to ensure the data is enforceably well-formed, and to provide reliable and consistent authorization boundaries.