Re: next step for the Solid WG charter

pá 17. 11. 2023 v 11:31 odesílatel Pierre-Antoine Champin <> napsal:

> Dear all,
> (this is a summary of a point I already presented during Wednesday's
> call [1])
> we have received a long awaited review from the TAG (the W3C Technical
> Architecture Group) on the Solid WG charter proposal [2]. This review
> echos and synthesizes a number of comments already made by some of the
> AC reviewers. It makes addressing those concerns even more pressing, and
> my belief is that this requires a drastic change in the charter proposal.
> I gave a lot of thoughts to the following sentence, from the TAG review
> : "we see an extremely broad problem space, and a single proposed
> solution". I believe this summarizes the crux of the concerns raised
> about the charter, but also points to a possible resolution. It is true
> that the Solid community has huge ambitions (reframing the way web
> applications are built and used, giving back the users control over
> their data...). But what we want to get out of this WG is not a complete
> and definitive answer to all of these ambitions. PR 62 [3] was an
> attempt in that direction, but it might not be suffisient: neither in
> terms of narrowing down the problem space, nor in term of broadening the
> solution space.
> If I had to give an elevator pitch of the Solid protocol (i.e. the
> expected deliverable of the proposed WG), it would be :
> * a evolution of the LDP protocol
> * + a standard way of authenticating users
> * + a standard way of specifying access control
> So my idea is that, instead of pushing for a "Solid WG", why not propose
> an "LDP 2.0 WG", chartered to produce 3 specifications : LDP 2.0
> (client-server protocol), LDP-OIDC (authentication based on OIDC) and
> LDP-AC (access control). The corresponding Solid specifications could
> serve as a basis for these deliverables, but so could other similar
> specifications (e.g. Ideally, the resulting
> specs would be entirely satisfying for Solid, meaning that a Solid POD
> would simply be required to comply with the 3 new LDP specs. Possibly, a
> few Solid-specific additions would be required, that could be specified
> as a very thin addition (a profile ?) of the new LDP.


LDP 2.0 WG reflects the reality of where Solid is, right now

It delivers the broad goal of creating a web operating system, albeit, with
a slightly different branding.

The LDP Next group IMHO was moving in this direction, in any case.  So it
might be a compromise solution acceptable to all.

This might actually be better, since LDP 2 servers could be easier to
implement and offer more diversity.  Easier to test, built of existing

> Before I move forward with this idea and start drafting a new charter,
> I'd like to know how this community feels about that?
>    pa
> [1]
> [2]
> [3]

Received on Friday, 17 November 2023 13:23:07 UTC