Re: W3C Solid Community Group

On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 6:55 AM Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, 21 Mar 2019 at 11:42, Michiel de Jong <michiel@unhosted.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Great, see you all in an hour and a few minutes from now! :)
>>
>> I realize the agenda for this one is now full, but since I had already
>> typed this email, I'll just ask if we can add three topics to the end of
>> the queue, and what we don't have time for can flow over to the next
>> meeting:
>>
>> * cross-server testsuite: we agree that we need something like
>> https://github.com/w3c/ldp-testsuite +
>> https://github.com/csarven/ldn-tests + WAC tests. Who wants to work on
>> this?
>>
>
> +1 on a test suite
>
> We are in a sort of node solid server bubble at the moment, which is not
> healthy.
>
> node / javascript is one of those things that is quite polarizing.  At one
> time most work went into our php server, at one time go, and most recently
> node and that has captured the mind share of the current development team
>
> There is a real danger that the node implementation becomes labeled
> reference and the spec is taken from that.  This is a mistake.  For example
> the OIDC work was commissioned to be an extra addition to live along side
> existing auth and provide a point of flexibility.  What happened in
> practice is it became the fox in the hen house and tried to replace
> existing methods, which for example work perfectly fine on server and
> command line, and we lost webid delegation in the process.
>
> Result is that we lost interop and all our apps broke.  We are now
> scrambling to fix this and have been for a year.  Just one of the many
> issues.
>

Yes! I agree a test suite is important to prevent problems like that.


> So, yes!  This is really important!  Thanks for bringing it up.
>
>
>>
>> * data collections: a collection (term coined by Justin yesterday) would
>> be something like "my contacts" or "my family photos". It's not necessarily
>> in  one LDP container, and  it's not necessarily one RDF type. It could
>> also be data from a specific source,  or data you use in a specific way,
>> with specific people, or for a specific purpose.  We've been using the type
>> index for data  discovery, but this is also related to access control. We
>> need to think more about this concept, since it's key to the sharing UX (
>> as in "do you allow this app to acess your ... colllection?").
>>
>
> Nice idea.
>
>
>>
>> * trusted apps UX: partially this is just the technical implementation
>> details of the previous topic ("given that the user wants  to  give app X
>> access to collection Y, how does that work step-by-step with webid and
>> wac?). This is not specified in detail in the spec but basically the
>> implementation we have now in NSS needs some work, and we probably want to
>> standardize this flow a bit across implementations
>> https://github.com/solid/node-solid-server/issues/1142. Also
>> https://github.com/solid/solid-spec/issues/142 which came out of the
>> last meeting.
>>
>
> Yes, very important too.  Also outstanding question is whether or not, or
> when, we should turn on trusted apps.  Is it needed just yet?
>

Yes, see https://www.w3.org/2019/03/07-solid-minutes.html (at the end), and
the two github issues I linked above.

>
>
>>
>> My 2ct,
>> Michiel
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 6:39 AM Mitzi László <mitzil@inrupt.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi W3C Solid Community Group,
>>>
>>> There have been three conversations over the email in the past couple of
>>> weeks:
>>>
>>>    1. Ontologies (Timo)
>>>    2. Identity Model (Timo)
>>>    3. Header to allow WebID TIS on servers (Melvin)
>>>
>>> If you would like to discuss them on the W3C Solid Community Group call
>>> please let me know. The agenda for the upcoming meeting is set, if we have
>>> time and you feel prepared we could dip into the additional conversations
>>> today. What would be helpful would be to define which parts of the spec are
>>> relevant to this conversation and where in the spec do you think additional
>>> work would be beneficial.?
>>>
>>> Melvin - in réponse to your question earlier, the purpose of the
>>> document on The Default was to demonstrate what I have in mind in
>>> preparation for an official conversation with our group in the upcoming
>>> call to decide how to move forward together.
>>>
>>> Mitzi
>>>
>>>