Where communities thrive


  • Join over 1.5M+ people
  • Join over 100K+ communities
  • Free without limits
  • Create your own community
People
Repo info
Activity
  • 18:28
    ylebre commented #461
  • 16:12
    gibsonf1 commented #461
  • 16:10
    jeff-zucker commented #461
  • 15:36
    jeff-zucker commented #461
  • 13:12

    csarven on main

    Minor (compare)

  • 13:11
    csarven commented #458
  • 13:06

    csarven on main

    Add W3C Solid CG weekly meeting… (compare)

  • 13:06
    csarven closed #458
  • 13:05
    csarven commented #458
  • 12:45
    elf-pavlik commented #458
  • Oct 04 15:27
    gibsonf1 commented #461
  • Oct 04 13:33
    elf-pavlik commented #376
  • Oct 04 13:24
    elf-pavlik commented #461
  • Oct 04 12:29
    RubenVerborgh commented #461
  • Oct 04 12:25
    csarven commented #376
  • Oct 04 12:17
    gibsonf1 commented #461
  • Oct 04 11:43
    csarven commented #376
  • Oct 04 11:43
    timbl commented #376
  • Oct 04 11:35
    csarven commented #376
  • Oct 04 11:33
    timbl assigned #461
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
Sarven Capadisli
@csarven
There are existing stuff like VoID or SPARQL Service Descriptions.
VoID indeed has .well-known/void
(which I hate)
but have used it extensively
Emmet
@emmettownsend
The implementations are already beginning to needs this so we should make decisions soon on thise to help maintain interoperabillitiy
For example ESS is already looking exposing registration and search
Sarven Capadisli
@csarven
Identity?
Emmet
@emmettownsend
?
Sarven Capadisli
@csarven
Registration of what?
Emmet
@emmettownsend
registration of a pod.
so pod creation
which should be decoupled from identity. identity creation is a different thing
Sarven Capadisli
@csarven
I thought we had more issues related to this... I'm sure they're around.
Emmet
@emmettownsend
Oh there are certainly issues. But we are now at the point where we need to resolve them. :)
Registration of an identity, registration of a pod, > 1 Pod per identity, moving a pod to another provider, changing owner of a Pod, making sure no links are broken. There are all related.
and of course bringing ones own domain for a webid and for a pod
Henry Story
@bblfish
Btw. I think that my Http Sig Authentication proposal is starting to look good. It brings in a lot of elements from the Self Sovereign Identity (DID, Universal Wallets, Agents, Verifiable Credentials, Signing HTTP Messages, ...) and so I think it could be a good thing to discuss with the Credentials folks in March. It also work very nicely with ACP/WAC. It is also I think optimally efficient.
Emmet
@emmettownsend
@bblfish thanks for the heads up. I haven't been keeping up to date so will have a read of it tonight. Cheers
Henry Story
@bblfish
If something is unclear let me know with a comment or such. :-)
I am going to be in programming mode for the next week or so: I need to get a basic LDP server together.
Emmet
@emmettownsend
Will do.
Sarven Capadisli
@csarven
Meeting with the WICG on identity+authentication is confirmed: https://github.com/WICG/WebID/issues/54#issuecomment-779405599
Sarven Capadisli
@csarven
@gibsonf1 Is your server publicly accessible?
Fred Gibson
@gibsonf1
@csarven Yes, but we will wipe the db before official launch at Solid World, so it is not in production mode yet
Matthieu Bosquet
@matthieubosquet

Registration of an identity, registration of a pod, > 1 Pod per identity, moving a pod to another provider, changing owner of a Pod, making sure no links are broken. There are all related.

I couldn't find any terms related to Pod ownership. It is already a problem in the upcomming ACP spec: solid/authorization-panel#171
And I was thinking such terms could pave the way forward to standardising Pod registration/provisioning/transfer...
I didn't find a whole lot that seems relevant on the Solid GitHub org either: https://github.com/search?q=org%3Asolid+pod+owner&type=issues

@csarven is it something that makes sense and what would be the best platform to discuss and/or bring it up?

Sarven Capadisli
@csarven
@matthieubosquet What's a Pod? What's ownership?
Aaron Coburn
@acoburn
That’s exactly @matthieubosquet’s point: WAC defines an owner property. But the ACP vocabulary is separate from WAC: should it define its own owner property? Or is there a way to define it more generally in Solid?
Sarven Capadisli
@csarven
Is acl:owner on pim:Storage equivalent/different from ACP's podOwner? But sure, we could have an alternative I suppose. If a spec requires it, sure..
acl:owner has range Agent. What's podOwner's domain/range?
probably mentioned in the issue comments I linked above... but if the property is on say Storage, I think it is reasonable to interpret that as the 'owner' of the 'pod'.
Aaron Coburn
@acoburn

Is acl:owner on pim:Storage equivalent/different from ACP's podOwner?

The difference is that acl:owner is part of the WAC domain, which isn’t relevant for non-WAC authZ mechanisms

Sarven Capadisli
@csarven
What do you mean by WAC domain?
Aaron Coburn
@acoburn
the ACL vocabulary is WAC
Sarven Capadisli
@csarven
<http://www.w3.org/ns/auth/acl#owner> <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#type> <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#Property> .
<http://www.w3.org/ns/auth/acl#owner> <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#comment> "The person or other agent which owns this.\n    For example, the owner of a file in a filesystem.\n    There is a sense of right to control.   Typically defaults to the agent who craeted\n    something but can be changed." .
<http://www.w3.org/ns/auth/acl#owner> <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#label> "owner"@en .
<http://www.w3.org/ns/auth/acl#owner> <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#range> <http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/Agent> .
is the the namespace that's of concern?
Aaron Coburn
@acoburn
yes
Sarven Capadisli
@csarven
so I don't understand the question then.. do you want a property for ACP (which you've already put through under w3.org..)
Want a more generic eg. solid:owner / solid:podOwner etc?
Aaron Coburn
@acoburn
The question is: does every authZ mechanism define their own owner property, or can one be added to the solid namespace and thereby be more generally applicable?
Sarven Capadisli
@csarven
I don't know about every.. but WAC doesn't require it at the moment, as you know. There are some things that's hinting at using acl:owner (or something similar from what I've gathered) but that's not specified. I do think it is reasonable to put it under solid/terms.
Aside: This conversation makes me think of WAC-Allow's parameters and access modes.
Aaron Coburn
@acoburn

Aside: This conversation makes me think of WAC-Allow's parameters and access modes.

completely agree