W3C Solid Community Group: Weekly

• Date: 2025-01-29T14:00:00Z
• Call: https://meet.jit.si/solid-cg
• Chat: https://matrix.to/#/#solid_specification:gitter.im
• Repository: https://github.com/solid/specification
• Status: Agenda

Present

• elf Pavlik
• Hadrian Zbarcea
• Pierre-Antoine Champin
• Rahul Gupta
• Theo
• Michal

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

• Join the W3C Solid Community Group, W3C Account Request, W3C Community Contributor License Agreement.
• Solid Code of Conduct, Positive Work Environment at W3C: Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct
• Operating principle for effective participation is to allow access across disabilities, across country borders, and across time. Feedback on tooling and meeting timing is welcome.
• If this is your first time, welcome! please introduce yourself.

Scribes

• elf Pavlik

Topics

[New Work Item] ActivityPub/Fediverse interoperability

https://github.com/solid/specification/issues/708

• eP: It is just an announcement, next week I hope to bring it up for a vote.
• PAC: It is importantn to have people from Social Web CG also involved. We need consistent story about Solid and Activity Pub.
• HZ: Question to PAC, isn't it more important to bring it to LWS WG?
• PAC: The charter mentions Social Web CG as a contact that we will synchronize with. There is no active Social Web WG. WGs have active scope, they need to sync, what we are discussin isn't directly in the scope of the LWS WG.
• HZ: What is the best path forward to bring it to LWS
• PAC: This is less urgent for the WG, at this moment it focuses on use cases. I don't expect strong coupling with Social Web CG. This work item should be a joined work in my opinion. Hopefully it will progress in CGs and we will have better understanding how to progress.
• RG: The way we were discussing it yesterday, it seems that Activity Pods specification will be layered on top of the Solid specification, not something in the Solid spec. This will require minimal changes in Solid/LWS spec.

State of CG reports

https://www.w3.org/2024/09/linked-web-storage-wg-charter.html#dependencies

Depending on the Working Group progress, including consideration for adequate implementation experience, the Group may also decide to adopt the following dependencies as input documents

• eP: It sounds like Solid-OIDC, ACP, WAC and Solid Notifications MAY be adopted by the WG. Where new implementation/deployment feedback should be addressed meanwhile?
• eP: Possible inspiration for CG-WG coordination: https://github.com/w3c-fedid/Administration/blob/main/proposals-CG-WG.md
• PAC: WG says that at this moment those reports are not formally considered as inputs from CGs. I would consider it ok to continue working on those reports in CG. WG may at some point signal that it wants to take over a specific report.
• PAC: As for incubation in FedCM community group, I assume that this is browser centric and it may relate to how the browser vendors work. It might not transfer well in our community.
• eP: …
• RG: I have a larger criticism of the process. The whole requirement that you need to be an invited expert or paid member to participate. For example I was refused to even observe the WG meetings eventhough, I was asked to submit a use case. I think this might be a problem.
• eP: In what way is the interaction inadequate? The LWS WG publishes minutes after the meeting.
• RG: The minutes give some idea. Aaron asked me to raise use cases that I mentioned during the TPAC. When I asked to observe the relevant meeting I was refused.
• PAC: It is inaccurate to say that non IE or members are not allowed. Chairs can invite observers to the meeting. I wasn't aware of your request. The process allows it and it would make sense if the use case you propossed is going to be discussed. On the other hand having dozens of observers on every meeting would not work. I will come back to the chairs to better understand your specific case.

Aligning Authentication

https://hackmd.io/8g6Lh81STPiXRInv8fBL_g

• eP: what are the next steps?
• RG: On March 16th I plan to go to IETF, I can speak with SPICE.

High level Solid Overview - reference

• RG: I was approached by NDN, they are writing a paper which has a write-up on Solid. I find it dated, for example term pod is not official. Can we have a cohisive explaination of Solid which is more technical than advertisment on solidproject.org? We can point people to it to get an overview of Solid.
• eP: Something like https://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-overview/ ?
• RG: Maybe, but maybe detailed.
• RG: Also the client client standards is inadequately discussed in documents.

ACTION: eP follow up on client client / interop effort.

• RG: On C2C standards, we wanted to get feedback from Tim as soon as he's back.
• RG: I want to tap into the collective inteligence of everyone who contributed to Solid.
• eP: Maybe you could post on CG mailing list and/or on Solid Forum?
• RG: In some time, I will.