Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
131 lines (104 loc) · 9.41 KB

2023-06-21.md

File metadata and controls

131 lines (104 loc) · 9.41 KB

W3C Solid Community Group: Weekly

Present


Announcements

Meeting Guidelines

  • W3C Solid Community Group Calendar.
  • W3C Solid Community Group Meeting Guidelines.
  • No audio or video recording, or automated transcripts without consent. Meetings are transcribed and made public. If consent is withheld by anyone, recording/retention must not occur.
  • Join queue to talk.
  • Topics can be proposed at the bottom of the agenda to be discussed as time allows. Make it known if a topic is urgent or cannot be postponed.

Participation and Code of Conduct

Scribes

  • Pierre-Antoine Champin

Introductions

  • name: text

Topics

Recording demos

  • SC: I don't mind recording it but this raises the question of where to host the video afterward. I could put it on my website but the CG probably does not want to rely on my website being up -- and I don't want this responsibility.

WIP Implementation Feedback

  • SC: We'll allocate some time for implementation feedback or interest to implement. Links to products/projects and demos welcome.
  • eP: IIUC we are about to accept the WebID section of the charter, I just setup my WebID. ~6 lines of nginx configuration. Based on Cool URIs for the Semantic Web - 4.3. 303 URIs forwarding to Different Documents . Simple deployment was super fast and easy.
  • SC: Would you consider the Turtle, JSON-LD, and HTML representation to be equivalent?
  • eP: Not really. They all describe me, but are intended for different audiences.
  • PA: Have you tried using this? I have experimented recently to have a pod on my CSS that is not using /profile/card#me but rather that I've been using some URL for some time. I've tried to be Solid compliant on that page. WebID which is not hosted on a pod even though it contains the required properties, to find my pod and access. Looking at yours, it redirects?
  • eP: It is just a static file currently. I hope to have an answer to your question next week. I can file bug reports about where the WebID is hosted.
  • JZ: about profiles not stored in a Pod: that's what ESS does currently does. And this cause problems in the WebID profile group. We are interested in your feedback.
  • PA: happy to join. My reading of the WebID profile spec was that it was ok, but let's discuss this.

Flemish Government Solid MVP on University Degrees

  • LD: this MVP was released in May. (possible to share the slides ?) S3: diploma data already available from a central database, but not easily shareable by users with future employers. S4: still discussing the terminology most appropriate for users ("personal safe"/"personal data vault", also thinking about "WebID") 40 Job applications happened through this MVP in the last month(?), no major issue encountered
  • JZ: fantastic stuff. Could you explain again what the entities are and their responsibilities?
  • LD: (showing Slide 6, which was skipped during the demo). Data Utility company provides GDPR-compliant pods on behalf of the government -- in the future, multiple providers. Ranstat acts as the verifier, on behalf of the potential employers.
  • eP: congratulations. Is the server using the latest version of Solid-OIDC or the old one?
  • LD: the servers implement the latest Solid-OIDC, but our ecosystem does not use DPoP yet. Support for this will follow after the summer.
  • PA: re JSON-LD and VCs, VC is an RDF dataset with multiple named graphs, which is not supported by LDP.
  • LD: yes, ESS and CSS behave differently. This is currently undefined behaviour in LDP and the Solid Protocol. We should address that.
  • SC: We currently refer to JSON-LD 1.1, which is not equivalent to Turtle.
  • PA: JSON-LD 1.0 already supported named graphs. This was an oversight of LDP -- I plead guilty, I was part of that WG.
  • HS: you cannot do credentials without named graphs. This is an interesting issue.
  • eP: I think the RDF 1.1 spec has some guidance about that. 4.2 Content Negotiation of RDF Datasets

Debriefing the screencast

  • SC: I'll see what I can do with the screencast. Useful even out of the context of this call.
  • HS: I think we should adapt the rules. The privacy concerns have evolved since COVID.
  • SC: the consent of the group is still necessary before any recording.

Add WebID to Dependencies

URL: solid/solid-wg-charter#40

  • SC: I suggest if no objections by 2023-06-21, we can merge with WebID CG Chair's go ahead on behalf of the group.
  • HS: Ok, I sent an email message out to WebID CG group. Seems people were ok. But we can wait a week.
  • SC: How about now? ... Note that the goal is not to turn WebID into a purely Solid thing. The WebID deliverable from the Solid WG would be usable in other contexts.
  • HS: I sent a link to the PR to the group, and I didn't see any objection.
  • SC: I followed the thread, I saw no objection either. But I'd like you as the chair to officially make that decision.
  • HS: Solid is actually using WebID, that's where it should be going.
  • SC: ACTION pchampin to merge following bblfish's approval in the PR

Update mission

URL: solid/solid-wg-charter#7

  • SC: This is editorial. PRs welcome.

Alternative solutions to container HATEOAS

URL: #525

  • SC: Proposed by RG and eP.
  • RG: if you want to upload something in a container, then GET the container, it is not clear what you should retrieve: only a link to the uploaded content, or also a description of it? ... Maybe a Prefer header could be used? eP has made a proposal in that sense.
  • SC: can you explain what you mean by "upload something"?
  • RG: Imagine a container /foo/. Either you POST to bar or PUT to foo/bar. What if you want to put something in the container that is elsewhere?
  • SC: Can't link to a resource outside of the container path, since client can't update the containment statements.
  • PA: Ran into this. Re-read the LDP spec for that matter. It seems to me that LDP contains some guidance on Prefer header. I tested on CSS and NSS. It appears not implemented. LDP says MAY (or SHOULD?). Just implementing LDP may solve that problem. https://www.w3.org/TR/ldp/#prefer-parameters
  • eP: For me, it is a broader issue. It could be a custom relation, not only ldp:contains. Related to server-managed statements, which the client cannot fully control. Also occurs in Notifications where server should manage Subscription Service discovery. We need a longer meeting to dive into this problem. (discussion about the managed statement occurring in an auxiliary resource). Look at the issue that RG created; it also links to other long-discussed issues.
  • SC: this issues looks too broad to be taken up as a whole. Could you try to break it down into smaller issues? (new features vs. parts of the spec that need clarification)
  • eP: if we has a bigger slot to discuss this, I could invite Joachim (CSS maintainer), could explain the choices made by CSS
  • RG: not sure that breaking apart is a good solution. The risk is to solve one part and break another one.
  • SC: agreed, but we are looking at different specs. Need to identify if that's fixing something in a spec, adding something in it, or adding a new spec.
  • RG: we are mostly stating the problem, not coming with a solution. That's why we need the longer discussion.

WG Charter

  • PA: I wanted to ask something about permissions for merging editorial changes for the mission. Is that something that will impact horizontal review?
  • SC: No. I would just still like that update on the mission to go through even while in horizontal review to have an accurate representation of the work.
  • PA: I just wanted to keep the ball rolling.
  • SC: Sure. We can capture this conversation here in the minutes.
  • PA: We need that for the horizontal review. Once WebID is merged, I'll ping the different parts of W3C to get the review started.
  • SC: +1