Where communities thrive


  • Join over 1.5M+ people
  • Join over 100K+ communities
  • Free without limits
  • Create your own community
People
Repo info
Activity
  • 16:23

    csarven on main

    Add 2022-05-18 minutes (compare)

  • 12:33
    matthieubosquet synchronize #408
  • 10:07
    matthieubosquet synchronize #408
  • 10:00
    matthieubosquet synchronize #408
  • 09:45
    matthieubosquet synchronize #408
  • 09:34
    matthieubosquet synchronize #408
  • 01:55
    matthieubosquet commented #408
  • 01:51
    matthieubosquet synchronize #408
  • May 14 12:25
    acoburn edited #408
  • May 14 12:17
    acoburn synchronize #408
  • May 13 19:56
    acoburn opened #408
  • May 13 16:13

    csarven on main

    Add privacy-principles (compare)

  • May 12 17:03
    csarven commented #407
  • May 12 17:02
    csarven commented #407
  • May 12 16:39
    csarven review_requested #407
  • May 12 16:39
    csarven opened #407
  • May 12 16:38

    csarven on version-scheme

    Add version scheme (compare)

  • May 12 16:37

    csarven on kjetil-homepage

    (compare)

  • May 12 16:37

    csarven on require-describedby

    (compare)

  • May 12 16:37

    csarven on restrict-requirement

    (compare)

Martynas Jusevicius
@namedgraph_twitter
the heuristics looks like it's going against URI opaqueness...
Fred Gibson
@gibsonf1
We would also be happy to host a pod that presents a systems model linked to Solid specs for the protocol
Martynas Jusevicius
@namedgraph_twitter
Fred Gibson
@gibsonf1
Maybe I'm asking for something different - a reliable master index of URI's for all the solid specs and their sections
We will be needing that and will have a separate uri (as well as full solid representation as a resource) for each section of the spec ideally set up to pull the latest version as well as provide diffs to previous versions of those specs
Aaron Coburn
@acoburn
I’m not sure how reliable those URLs will be until there is a TR version of the document. Until then, the text and identifiers can all change
Fred Gibson
@gibsonf1
Thanks @acoburn Once the TR version is done, those then can be relied on?
Aaron Coburn
@acoburn
Presumably, yes
Fred Gibson
@gibsonf1
Sounds good. So in the mean time, we can just use current non-stable uris and then map to the final ones when they hit the TR, so that seems workable
Sarven Capadisli
@csarven

@gibsonf1

Are the bookmarks etc in the Specs going to persist - or are they not reliable as URI references to mission critical system specs?

Yes, intended to "persist". In a long enough time, probably not. I've created/proposed a pledge for URI persistence from for the technical reports under solidproject.org: solid/solidproject.org#489 -- you'll have to follow-up on the linked issues.. Can discuss finer details.

I would however take the current state as draft - re "Editor's Draft" as far as the Status of the Document goes. So, expect changes.. there are some units of information that I didn't get to which will probably get renamed.

Regarding your intentions/needs, I have my full support. This is also something that CSS is doing/will do eg. referencing distinct requirements in context of the code that's implementing it.

@namedgraph_twitter

the heuristics looks like it's going against URI opaqueness...
https://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#uri-opacity

Explain.

@gibsonf1

Maybe I'm asking for something different - a reliable master index of URI's for all the solid specs and their sections

You'll get that eventually re "reliable". See for example: http://rdf.greggkellogg.net/distiller?command=serialize&url=https:%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FTR%2Fldn%2F&format=rdfa&output_format=turtle&raw -- W3C's snapshot is frozen.. That's the URI-R (Original Resource).. URI-M is https://www.w3.org/TR/2017/REC-ldn-20170502/ (the URI that W3C pledges for persistence). See PR 489 above.

Sarven Capadisli
@csarven
This message was deleted
GoodNewsEveryone.jpg

Good news everyone!

We're (again) in contact with the W3C Web Platform Incubator CG and this time we're looking into exchanging our notes/work over a meeting:

WICG/WebID#54

(
I've mentioned WICG's work/initiative around "WebID" in the authentication-panel awhile back:
https://gitter.im/solid/authentication-panel?at=5f96a28d3d172d78b39bf4bd
https://gitter.im/solid/authentication-panel?at=5f9aebabd5a5a635f28b8415
)

Date:
February 22 (Monday) at 17:00 GMT (for a ~2h session, TBD) is the proposed date for the meeting.

Sessions:

  • There is no particular format (yet) other than to get an understanding of each others' work. So, brief presentations with a lot of Q&A is a possibility.
  • Anyone is welcome to attend. Please join at least one of the CG's if not already.
  • Sessions may/will be minuted.

Todos:

Justin Bingham
@justinwb
This is great @csarven - confirmed I can be there :white_check_mark:
Sarven Capadisli
@csarven
:) Exciting, isn't it?
Justin Bingham
@justinwb
it is!
Henry Story
@bblfish
Have added it to my calendar. Will need to catch up on what they are doing too now!
Sarven Capadisli
@csarven

Will need to catch up on what they are doing too now!

Story of my life.

Aaron Coburn
@acoburn
@csarven I can attend.
Emmet
@emmettownsend
@emmettownsend
While moving to the next phase of our development on Solid products we found we needed a flexible, robust test suite so that we can test for conformance against the specificaiton. That led me to write a blog with the help of @edwardsph and @RubenVerborgh . Happy to get feedback if you get a chance to have a read. Thanks.
https://inrupt.com/blog/conformance-test-suite
Jordan Shurmer
@JordanShurmer
yes! This is awesome @emmettownsend
Fred Gibson
@gibsonf1
Nice post @emmettownsend , and I definitely vote RDF wherever possible
Justin Bingham
@justinwb
:clap: :clap:
Jordan Shurmer
@JordanShurmer
I would definitely use such a suite of tests btw.
I have a Rust implementation I'm starting to get back to..
wrote my own tiny tests so far, but something like that would be very useful
Justin Bingham
@justinwb
really like the structure of this framework @emmettownsend - this will also do nicely for the shape tree conformance testing that’s about to get underway
Sarven Capadisli
@csarven

Issue/discussion from 2019-07 on supporting RDFa in specifications (based on prior experience): solid/specification#6

One of the reasons why bikeshed/respec (compiling) pipeline is not used for /TR/ , /TR/ecosystem , /TR/protocol , and soon /TR/web-access-control , (and hopefully other reports will follow along) is that it doesn't fit the Solid pipeline ie. what Solid servers (eg. NSS, CSS, ESS..) and applications can do (eg. dokieli). The template is already in place.. and after some more restructuring, we'll have fine-grained statements (eg. all the bits of a requirement). The LDN spec did it up to a point of identifying and describing the requirements - I ran out of time back then to do more with the test suite. Now we have that possibility.

See also Linked Specifications, Test Suites, and Implementation Reports: https://csarven.ca/linked-specifications-reports (2017) for an overview on existing work and how all major components fit together.

Henry Story
@bblfish
For our march meeting with the Credentials community I think I have found a very nice way for us to interact with them via @dmitrizagidulin's did:web proposal. I wrote up details on https://github.com/solid/specification/issues/217#issuecomment-777375570
Sarven Capadisli
@csarven

OK, so, I didn't hear back from anyone re topics with CCG.. besides @bblfish's solid/authentication-panel#126 ... so going to stick to their suggestions, bblfish's, and mention zcap perhaps.

As for meeting with WICG, I take it that we'll stick to the suggested date (Feb 22) - will keep everyone posted if there is any specific agenda beyond intro to Solid's use of WebID, Solid-OIDC, and WICG's WebID.

Henry Story
@bblfish
I am developing some interesting ideas starting from @dmitrizagidulin ideas on did and solid that he posted here https://github.com/solid/specification/issues/217#issuecomment-777101431 nearly a couple of years ago to talk to the CCG about
Sarven Capadisli
@csarven
Right. I think that'll be covered naturally.. (IMO) but will mention it.
Sarven Capadisli
@csarven
@/all CCG announcement for the meetings with SolidCG: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-credentials/2021Feb/0062.html
Fred Gibson
@gibsonf1
Does anyone know if there is official posix or other ontology for a file name and folder. We found this https://www.w3.org/ns/posix/stat, but knowing what standard predicate is being used for a file name would be very helpful
Sarven Capadisli
@csarven
BTW, the ns is in http, not https
Sarven Capadisli
@csarven
Seen https://lov.linkeddata.es/dataset/lov/terms?q=filename&type=property ? Probably best to decide on what it is supposed to be a property of. For example, is it to say this resource is mapped to a /path/to/file on a local system?
Fred Gibson
@gibsonf1
In our case we have a RDF node that represents a file, and there is a version property that points to a file. We use a tag property to represent the file name and use that tag, and the tags of containers, to build a path based uri to map back to that node. The issue is that a file and container name need url encoding to accept spaces etc, so we want to use a special version of the tag that indicates urlencoding and just wondering if there is some property typically used for the file name (and container) already in use
Fred Gibson
@gibsonf1
We now need to add search to our App ideally using an auto-fill approach where as you type each letter the search is refined. Ideally this would be hitting a sparql query that has results filtered based on permissions, but is there a provision in Solid for doing sparql queries to find information or should we just do a separate solid secured sparql endpoint for that?
Aaron Coburn
@acoburn
@gibsonf1 keep in mind that not every Solid server uses files or even local filesystems
Aaron Coburn
@acoburn
Including a SPARQL query endpoint is an implementation decision, but it is not required by the current protocol spec document
Fred Gibson
@gibsonf1
regardless of implementation, it would be good to have some kind of search endpoint that servers could respond to
Aaron Coburn
@acoburn
There have been various conversations over time, but this captures a lot of the current thinking: https://github.com/solid/specification/issues/162#issuecomment-608632015
Fred Gibson
@gibsonf1
Link above = How about a very simple standard endpoint on solid in the format of /search that takes a string of characters, similar to typing in a google search box, that the Solid Server can respond to in whatever form the client requests such as turtle etc?
Fred Gibson
@gibsonf1
For retrieving ontology for use in our app, we have an endpoint on the Server /ns that takes requests in the form of /ns/foaf/Person ( ns/prefix/term ) to then resolve on server side to the uri and return ontology triples from that request. The issue of course is that with ontology, you can't use those uri's directly to retrieve any custom ontology built around the original or in many cases, the uri's don't resolve at all. Does Solid have any plans for the ontology request issue?
Sarven Capadisli
@csarven
? Why can't applications GET the vocabs/ontologies from source? What's the use case?
Henry Story
@bblfish
yes, ontologies should be available via GET if well designed. But PLEASE build caching systems
Emmet
@emmettownsend
I think it will be necessarily to have a few standard endpoints. However rather than hard code them we should think about using something like a .well-known/solid endpoint where a client can discover the endpoints supported by a server.
Henry Story
@bblfish
The whole notion of "endpoint" smaks somehow of SOAP, so I tend to think one should avoid it.
Emmet
@emmettownsend
:)