Re: "Personal Data Store" work at W3C

út 24. 10. 2023 v 14:50 odesílatel Michiel de Jong <michiel@pondersource.com>
napsal:

> Hi all,
>
> Cross-posting this to our W3C-hosted ML and our Google-hosted one.
>
> As you know the W3C has informal Community Groups (CGs) that are open to
> everyone and formal Working Groups (WG) that are only open to paying
> members.
>
> I was at TPAC in Sevilla last month, and while discussing the proposed
> Solid WG with people there, the idea came up that a working group should
> not be named after a solution but after a problem, so "Solid WG" should
> maybe be renamed to "Personal Data Store WG".
>

Michiel, phrases like "the idea came up" leaves readers guessing as to the
source and conviction.  This is of interest, it would be helpful provide
context as to whose idea it was.

Solid has always been conceived as "Social Linked Data".  It is true that
there has been some idea drift in redact years, and the social web requires
a place to store UGC.


>
> If that happens, it would be interesting to see if such a WG would pick up
> work from this CG - in particular our remoteStorage spec, which is
> currently a rolling Internet Draft at IETF but we could also use W3C as the
> venue for its development.
>

Yes, it could happen.  The bar for a WG is increasingly low, easier if you
have money or a corporate sponsor though.

Question is, why would you want to?  Does the structure help with
anything?  Is it better than a note?


>
> I think there might be good synergies and eye-openers in comparing
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dejong-remotestorage/ and
> https://solidproject.org/TR/protocol - for instance,
> the question we discussed in
> https://community.remotestorage.io/t/access-control-lists/105/8 : should
> a PDS protocol include ACLs?
>

I always wanted ACLs to be layered on top of RS in a modular way, but
there's a degree of coupling, which makes things not swappable.

That said, RS offers a lot of advantages over Solid, right now for
developers.


>
> In the https://github.com/solid-contrib/data-modules project we're also
> building synergies between Solid and remoteStorage.
>

Is solid-contrib even still maintained.  We need a grass roots area for
solid.

>
>
> See also my public review of the Solid WG Charter
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2023Oct/0003.html
>

Odd.  Why rename the group?  Seems mainly advocating yoru personal choice
as chair.  But there's no real evidence that'll make the WG run any faster,
or better, nor have a better technical outcome.  Ideally Solid should just
go to REC status without too much bike shedding.


>
> Cheers,
> Michiel.
>