Where communities thrive


  • Join over 1.5M+ people
  • Join over 100K+ communities
  • Free without limits
  • Create your own community
People
Repo info
Activity
  • Nov 25 11:43

    csarven on 2022-11-23

    (compare)

  • Nov 25 11:43

    csarven on main

    Add 2022-11-23 agenda and minut… (compare)

  • Nov 25 11:43
    csarven closed #483
  • Nov 25 11:42

    csarven on 2022-11-23

    Apply suggestions from code rev… (compare)

  • Nov 25 11:42
    csarven synchronize #483
  • Nov 23 16:42
    csarven synchronize #483
  • Nov 23 16:42

    csarven on 2022-11-23

    Corrections to minutes (compare)

  • Nov 23 15:11
    csarven synchronize #483
  • Nov 23 15:11

    csarven on 2022-11-23

    Update 2022-11-23 minutes (compare)

  • Nov 23 12:15
    csarven labeled #483
  • Nov 23 12:15
    csarven assigned #483
  • Nov 23 12:15
    csarven opened #483
  • Nov 23 12:15

    csarven on 2022-11-23

    Add 2022-11-23 agenda and minut… (compare)

  • Nov 18 13:48
    csarven edited #462
  • Nov 17 18:13

    csarven on main

    Use updated requirement level c… (compare)

  • Nov 17 17:57

    csarven on main

    Use updated requirement level c… (compare)

  • Nov 17 17:48

    csarven on use-solid-protocol-classes-of-products

    (compare)

  • Nov 17 17:48

    csarven on main

    Use #Server #Client for spec:re… (compare)

  • Nov 17 17:48
    csarven closed #479
  • Nov 17 17:47
    csarven closed #282
Emmet
@emmettownsend
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

Sarven Capadisli
@csarven
So, if solid:owner is equivalentProperty acl:owner that'd be okay? :) IMO, for "podOwner" to be sensible, domain probably needs to be a "Pod". This is where I was going with using acl:owner on pim:Storage.
Justin Bingham
@justinwb

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?

should be under solid imo

Dmitri Zagidulin
@dmitrizagidulin
any chance i can convince ya’ll to use ‘controller’ instead of ‘owner’?
(so that we can match the w3c community terminology)
Matthieu Bosquet
@matthieubosquet
@dmitrizagidulin could you link to relevant documentatoin on the w3c terminology?
Matthieu Bosquet
@matthieubosquet
+1 for the owner/controller property being under solid with domain solid:Pod
Sorry if the question has already been answered, but is there or should we create a class and predicate for WebIDs?
Something like solid:webId & solid:WebID.
Since really agents in the solid context are identified by a WebID and a WebID really is just a URI identifying an Agent.
I'm wondering if solid:WebID would not be a better fit as range of an owner property or as domain of solid:oidcIssuer instead of a vcard:Agent which might have a solid:webId or not.
Sarven Capadisli
@csarven

@matthieubosquet If of interest: https://github.com/solid/specification/issues/153#issuecomment-616464435 , https://gitter.im/solid/chat?at=59f890fce44c43700a9dc81f or see links in https://github.com/solid/contacts-pane/issues/18#issuecomment-725963009 .

As long as the needs are well documented and specs are referring to them, all fine. Not sure about a webid Class but can probably get more out of a property.

I'm not opposed to "podOwner" property or "Pod" class -- and which namespace is to throw it under is the least of concerns IMO -- but I'd like to hear more from people about what they think/expect with the differences are with root container (pim:Storage) or maybe even server origin or root URI path..

re "controller" or "owner" etc .. see links above. Plenty of existing discussion in chats/issues.. not worth repeating here unless there is some new information. tl;dr: both are fine as synonyms but can obviously differ in their meaning and purpose. Don't forget to throw in "creator" or "admin" or "authority" for fun and profit.

Matthias Evering
@ewingson
Don't forget to throw in "creator" or "admin" or "authority" for fun and profit.
I like this thought. it made me smile...
@csarven do you need confirmation for participation in the w3c meetings ? I won' t make it on feb 22nd but on march 10th I will attend both as fly on the wall.
Sarven Capadisli
@csarven
@ewingson No need now.. just attend as you can/like. Thanks.
Justin Bingham
@justinwb
@csarven is this meeting still happening?
i’m at https://meet.jit.si/solid-wicg-identity-authentication but there’s no one else here
Justin Bingham
@justinwb
ah is it 5 hours from now
Sarven Capadisli
@csarven
:)