https://github.com/solid/specification/pull/722

# W3C Solid Community Group: Weekly

* Date: 2025-03-26T14:00:00Z
* Call: https://meet.jit.si/solid-cg
* Chat: https://matrix.to/#/#solid_specification:gitter.im
* Repository: https://github.com/solid/specification
* Status: Draft

## Present
* Hadrian Zbarcea
* [elf Pavlik](https://elf-pavlik.hackers4peace.net)
* Alain Bourgeois
* [Erich Bremer](https://ebremer.com)
* [Rahul Gupta](https://cxres.pages.dev/profile#i)
* [TallTed // Ted Thibodeau](https://github.com/TallTed/) (he/him) (OpenLinkSw.com)
* Rui Zhao
* Jesse Wright

---

## Announcements

### Meeting Guidelines
* [W3C Solid Community Group Calendar](https://www.w3.org/groups/cg/solid/calendar).
* [W3C Solid Community Group Meeting Guidelines](https://github.com/w3c-cg/solid/blob/main/meetings/README.md).
* 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](https://www.w3.org/community/solid/join), [W3C Account Request](http://www.w3.org/accounts/request), [W3C Community Contributor License Agreement](https://www.w3.org/community/about/agreements/cla/)
* [Solid Code of Conduct](https://github.com/solid/process/blob/main/code-of-conduct.md), [Positive Work Environment at W3C: Code of Conduct](https://www.w3.org/policies/code-of-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

### Introductions
* [name]

---

## Topics

### LWS Use Cases
URL: https://github.com/w3c/lws-ucs/issues

* HZ: There is progress being made, more comming this and comming weeks. Please take a look add comments and new use cases. Especially with Solid CG hats on, to make sure LWS work serves Solid community.
* eP: My preference would be to have a common pool of use cases. Is that acceptable, or do we want a hard separation between use cases? We want the use cases to be coherent.
* HZ: There is a use cases document; currently there is a PR for requirements. The coherent set of use cases will be in that document. In the issues, we throw everything we can at the wall. I'm trying to extract requirements from use cases, which first go into issues where they can be discussed and later got into the document via PRs. The same for use cases. It is important to clarify that UC document is non-normative, which means that it doesn't imply that they are in scope of the WG. It may require that WG explains why it is not in scope.
* eP: Sounds good to me...
* HZ: People come up with a lot of use cases that are duplicate, it is a good read for the WG audience.
* eP: Given that NLnet accepted my project I will be able to work full time on Solid. I'm considering applying for the WG IE position.
* HZ: To participate in the meetings, it is less of a question to me more to the CG chairs. What the process and thinking is.
* eP: I'm going to reach out to WG chairs to ask what they think.

### HTTP `QUERY` Method

https://httpwg.org/http-extensions/draft-ietf-httpbis-safe-method-w-body.html

* RG: Opportunity to rethink SPARQL Queries
* RG: We discussed it at IETF meeting. This is practically GET method with the body.
* eP: This was discussed in the past. If nothing moved in the past 10 years, do you think there is more interest now?
* RG: this draft is in last call phase.
* eP: where would you see this applied in Solid? We don't currently use SPARQL queries.
* RG: You're not going to do it for doing updates. The 2 things I see happening. You could have WebID profiles with public and private data. Or, you could have N3 patch format.
* eP: Hadrian can you recall any existing use case that could potentially benefit from this functionality.
* HZ: In my mind this is a bit premature. How much infrastructure will be neccessary to support Solid and LWS in scale. For many of the use cases I can argue on either side of the argument.
* eP: I recall espresso work presented in Practitioners meeting.
* RZ: I think I know who are those people, we met previously. They are from Southamption and ... university. Jesse also knows them. My understanding is that they don't activelly participate in Solid related meeting. I don't know what is needed from their side.
* JW: My understanding is that they are trying to develop query aggregators on top of existing Solid architecture. They have been using Communica to aggregate queries. Seeing the topic of HTTP Query method. I don't think they will inform a lot here.
* JW: There is also Graphmetrix, they are interested in having query standardized and are in process of getting W3C membership and work with LWS on query mechanism.

### Incremental HTTP Messages

https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-kazuho-httpbis-incremental-http-00.html

* RG: Useful for SNP and PREP
* RG: Don't start buffering the response, start forwarding it as it comes. It is extremelly useful. It prevents connections from being closed.

### STM App Launchers

* eP: Summary of the call and followup. I have it recorded, do we have a place to publish it?
* eP: Joseph joined on the AU time. There's a video recording, I do have it. There are 2 possible follow up, one is the proposal from Sebastien (ActivityPods) about extending SAI, AP is currently working on that, this would happen in the data interop; there's also a draft Joseph is working on, I would encourage him to include it as a work item for the team; it's not as much of spec, mostly a report. If he proposes that as a work item, there would be a repo to work on that, otherwise we'll have to find a solution. But it would be good to have one place to incorporate all that. I would like to avoid fragmentation of work, a problem we had in the past. I am open for suggestions.
* JW: For the videos, we can put them on the Vimeo, also Peertube that Jeff is managing. I think also all the content from Vimeo was cloned there.
* HZ: How about pod for community public data? Right now we have it spread across multiple services with different APIs.
* eP: I support it as long as we don't wait with publishing until we have Solid based space available.
* HZ: Solid pod would be the connonical space
* JW: Peertube is a decentralized architecture for Video storage. I think currently CSS is not well equiped for streaming large files. I would suggest treating it as authoritative source at this moment.
* HZ: I agree that it is best delivery mechanism. I'm not sure that this should be the source of truth.
* JW: Why?
* HZ: Many reasons, including metadata. Many of the things we want to have in Solid are not on the radar of other technologies.
* JW: I would raise it in Solid ODI matrix channel. There is an existing conversation including on of the developers of Peertube.

### CG calls setup

* eP: Credentials CG has very impressive setup. Is there any chance W3C could provide similar setup for all CGs or each CG needs to roll their own?
* HZ: This discussion has link to all meeting notes: https://github.com/solid/specification/discussions/703
* TT: Calendar should link to that discussion
* eP: Since we copy minutes from pad to PR we can have one permanent scratch pad and have it linked from CG calendar.
* eP: We use hackmd as the editor and then move everything to a PR. It would be good to use a single scratch pad. My proposal would be to have a permanent hackmd scratch pad and use it for every meeting.
* HZ: We are using a milion tools. I understand the proposal, not really sure.
* eP: I'm only proposing to streamline what we are already doing.
* HZ: I understood something different. We just need to make sure that we right away move content to PR.
* AB: The only thing that is important for me are notifications. If system doesn't give notificastions it is not a good system. The advantage of github is that you can follow/watch and you will receive notifications.
* HZ: We will not change use of github, only how we use hackmd will change.
* AB: As long as we get notification on the PR it is ok with me.
* JW: I'm using tools like https://fireflies.ai/ which produce great summarizations. We could make an experiment using something like that. Noting what Ted raised in LWS meeting about things we may want to keep off the record.
* HZ: Chairs could redact things that don't need to go public.
* TT: Recording audio is one question, historically if there was any objection that session would not be recorded, so there still need to be a fallback. Then there is the question about interpersonal politics. Sometimes it is important to say something while keeping it off the record. The last thing is summary vs. transcription. I don't think I have an objection of producing a summary as long as we don't loose the detailed transcription.
* HZ: Most of the grups already record the conversations.
* JW: The tool I pointed, produces both full transcription and additional summary with actions. I find it pretty accurate.
* TT: Yes there are more and more grups which are doing recording. There is need in preserving the explicit consent. The EU has some rules about that.
* eP: ...
* TT: That automated system is mostly maintained by Digital Bazaar. They are slowly stepping back from maintaining it. Credentials CG is moving away from jitsi into a google chat. The transcription is using Google bot but it slowly moves away from capturing non US participants. I don't know if the same will apply after migration to google chat.

### CSS components library

* Alain: There is some momentum around components for CSS (FedCM, google auth, proxy, webFinger ...).
* ... The actual available lists: forum, solidproject.org, catalog could be used but they are in my opinion difficult to follow. What about an "awesome-solid" list in github?
Just need to follow the repo to be notified of changes.