Where communities thrive


  • Join over 1.5M+ people
  • Join over 100K+ communities
  • Free without limits
  • Create your own community
People
Repo info
Activity
  • Jun 22 11:35

    csarven on main

    Add version scheme Simplify pre-release example Merge pull request #407 from so… (compare)

  • Jun 22 11:35
    csarven closed #407
  • Jun 22 11:34
    csarven synchronize #407
  • Jun 22 11:34

    csarven on version-scheme

    Simplify pre-release example (compare)

  • Jun 16 16:32
    acoburn commented #415
  • Jun 16 16:29

    csarven on main

    Add missing 'Primer' to Solid-O… Merge pull request #415 from so… (compare)

  • Jun 16 16:29
    csarven closed #415
  • Jun 16 16:29
    csarven edited #415
  • Jun 16 16:29
    csarven edited #415
  • Jun 16 16:26
    csarven opened #415
  • Jun 16 16:22

    csarven on solid-oidc-primer-title

    Add missing 'Primer' to Solid-O… (compare)

  • Jun 16 16:19
    csarven closed #414
  • Jun 16 16:19

    csarven on main

    Fix URL label for notification … Merge pull request #414 from ac… (compare)

  • Jun 16 16:11
    acoburn opened #414
  • Jun 16 14:51
    elf-pavlik commented #407
  • Jun 15 13:58

    csarven on main

    Add 2022-06-15 minutes (compare)

  • Jun 14 14:47
    VirginiaBalseiro review_requested #413
  • Jun 14 14:46
    VirginiaBalseiro synchronize #413
  • Jun 14 14:44
    VirginiaBalseiro synchronize #413
  • Jun 14 14:33
    csarven edited #413
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
:)
for example . a registration endpoint.
Henry Story
@bblfish
registration for what?
Emmet
@emmettownsend
allows the creation of pods without requiring a user and a browser. and makes it standard across servers.
Search is anothers example
certainly not anythng like SOAP though
Henry Story
@bblfish
That sounds a bit like an index...
Emmet
@emmettownsend
index is just an implementation detail
its really about discovery
how do I create a pod on this service.
how do I search on this service
Henry Story
@bblfish
I think containers and resources should provide their own query link...
Emmet
@emmettownsend
ok so providing a link header to allow a client discovver how it queries a container is certainly one way. But we also need to think about cross pod searches and corss ecosystem searches
similarly one could have a link header from a server to discover the pod resistration end point.
Some of these things will not change and there may be push back around adding lots of link headers. Hence another approach would be a .well-known/solid resource
This could be available per pod and per server
Henry Story
@bblfish
Hmm. I don't have that much of an opinion on that yet.
Emmet
@emmettownsend
from my perspective there are many ways to approach it. But things like this should be in the spec in order to ensure interoperability and portabililty
Sarven Capadisli
@csarven
Solid resources are intended to be self-describing. No need for .well-known/solid when the Storage resource (root container) can link to what it has.
Emmet
@emmettownsend
That is only true while there is no problem with link hearder tax
and we would still need to align on the terms to use to access specific services.
Sarven Capadisli
@csarven
Will have to do that any way.
Emmet
@emmettownsend
So there are really two things 1) What standard services must/may be provided and what terms should we use 2) How do we approach discoverability for these, becuase its not a given that it should always be a link header