# W3C Solid Community Group: Weekly

* Date: 2023-06-21T14:00:00Z
* Call: https://meet.jit.si/solid-cg
* Chat: https://gitter.im/solid/specification
* Repository: https://github.com/solid/specification
* Status: Draft

## Present
* [Sarven Capadisli](https://csarven.ca/#i)
* [elf Pavlik](https://elf-pavlik.hackers4peace.net)
* [Pierre-Antoine Champin](https://solid.champin.net/pa/profile/card#me)
* Laurens Debackere
* Hadrian Zbarcea
* [Jesse Wright (jeswr)](https://www.jeswr.org/#me)
* Maxime Lecoq
* April Daly
* Jeff Zucker
* [Rahul Gupta](https://cxres.pages.dev/profile#i)
---

## 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/solid/specification/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 Ethics and Professional Conduct](https://www.w3.org/Consortium/cepc/)
* 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
* Pierre-Antoine

### Introductions
* name: text

---

## Topics

### Recording demos
* SC: I don't mind recording it but this raises the question of where to host the video afterward. I could put it on my website but the CG probably does not want to rely on my website being up -- and I don't want this responsibility.

### WIP Implementation Feedback
* SC: We'll allocate some time for implementation feedback or interest to implement. Links to products/projects and demos welcome.
* eP: IIUC we are about to accept the WebID section of the charter, I just setup my WebID. ~6 lines of nginx configuration. Based on [Cool URIs for the Semantic Web - 4.3. 303 URIs forwarding to Different Documents](https://www.w3.org/TR/cooluris/#r303uri) . Simple deployment was super fast and easy.
* SC: would you consider the Turtle / JSON-LD and the HTML representation to be equivalent?
* eP: not really. They both describe me, but intended to different audiences.
* PA: Have you tried using this? I have experimented recently to have a pod on my CSS that is not using /profile/card#me but rather that I've been using some URL for some URL. I've tried ti something on that page to be Solid compliant. WebID which is not hosted on a pod even though it contains the required properties, to find my pod and access. Looking at your, it redirects?
* eP: It is just a static file currently. I hope to have an answer to your question next week. I can file bug reports about where the WebID is hosted.
* JZ: about profiles not stored in a Pod: that's what ESS does currently does. And this cause problems in the WebID profile group. We are interested in your feedback.
* PA: happy to join. My reading of the WebID profile spec was that it was ok, but let's discuss this.

### Flemish Government Solid MVP on University Degrees

* LD: this MVP was released in May.
(possible to share the slides ?)
S3: diploma data already available from a central database, but not easily sharable by users with future employers.
S4: still discussing the terminology most appropriate for users ("personal safe"/"personal data vault", also thinking about "WebID")
40 Job applications happened through this MVP in the last month(?), no major issue encountered
* JZ: fantastic stuff. Could you explain again what the entities are and their responsibilities?
* LD: (showing Slide 6, which was skipped during the demo). Data Utility company provides GDPR-compliant pods on behalf of the government -- in the future, multiple providers. Ranstat acts as the verifier, on behalf of the potential employers.
* eP: congratulations. Is the server using the latest version of Solid-OIDC or the old one?
* LD: the servers implement the latest Solid-OIDC, but our ecosystem does not use DPoP yet. Support for this will follow after the summer.
* PA: re JSON-LD and VCs, VC is a RDF dataset with multiple named graphs, which is not supported by LDP.
* LD: yes, the ESS and the CSS behave differently, this is undefined behaviour currently in LDP and the Solid Protocol. We should address that.
* SC: We currently reffer to JSON-LD 1.0, which is not equivalent to turtle
* PA: JSON-LD 1.0 already supported named graphs. This was an oversight of LDP -- I plead guilty, I was part of that WG.
* HS: you can not do credentials without named graphs. This is an interesting issue.
* eP: I think the RDF 1.1 spec has some guidance about that. [4.2 Content Negotiation of RDF Datasets](https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#section-dataset-conneg)

### Debriefing the screencast

* SC: I'll see what I can do with the screencast. Useful even out of the context of this call.
* HS: I think we should adapt the rules. The pribacy concerns have evolved since COVID.
* SC: the consent of the group is still necessary before any recording.

### Add WebID to Dependencies
URL: https://github.com/solid/solid-wg-charter/pull/40

* SC: Resolves https://github.com/solid/solid-wg-charter/issues/39 .
>* SC: I suggest if no objections by 2023-06-21, we can merge with WebID CG Chair's go ahead on behalf of the group.
>* HS: Ok, I sent [an email message out to WebID CG group](https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webid/2023Jun/0001.html). Seems people were ok. But we can wait a week.
* SC: How about now?
Note that the goal is not to turn WebID into a purely Solid thing. The WebID deliverable from the Solid WG would be usable in other contexts.
* HS: I sent a link to the PR to the group, and I didn't see any objection.
* SC: I followed the thread, I saw no objection either. But I'd like you as the chair to officially make that decision.
* HS: Solid is actually using WebID, that's where it should be going.
* SC: ACTION pchampin to merge following bblfish's approval in the PR

### Update mission
URL: https://github.com/solid/solid-wg-charter/issues/7

* SC: This is editorial. PRs welcome.

### Alternative solutions to container HATEOAS
URL: https://github.com/solid/specification/issues/525

* SC: Proposed by RG and eP.
* RG: if you want to upload something in a container, then GET the container, it is not clear what you should retrieve: only a link to the uploaded content, or also a description of it?
Maybe a `Prefer` header could be used? eP has made a proposal in that sense.
* SC: can you explain what you mean by "upload something"?
* RG: imagine a container `/foo/`. Either you POST `bar` of put to `foo/bar`. What if you want to put in the container that is elsewhere?
* SC: Can't link to a resource outside of the container path since client can't update the containment statements.
* PA: Ran into this.. Re-read the LDP spec for that matter, it seems to me that LDP contains osme guidance on Prefer header. I tested on CSS and NSS. It appears not implemented. LDP says MAY (or SHOULD?). Just implementing LDP may solve that problem. https://www.w3.org/TR/ldp/#prefer-parameters
* eP: for me it is a broader issue. It could be a custom relation, not only `ldp:contains`. Related to server-managed statements, which the client can not fully control. Also occurs in Notifications where server should manage Subscription Service discovery. We need a longer meeting to dive into this problem. (discussion about the managed statement occuring in an auxiliary resource). Look at the issue that RG created, it also links to other long-discussed issues.
* SC: this issues looks too broad to be taken up as a whole. Could you try to break it down into smaller issues? (new features vs. parts of the spec that need clarification)
* eP: if we has a bigger slot to discuss this, I could invite Joachim (CSS maintainer), could explain the choices made by CSS
* RG: not sure that breaking apart is a good solution. The risk is to solve one part and break another one.
* SC: agreed, but we are looking at different specs. Need to identify if that's fixing something in a spec, adding something in it, or adding a new spec.
* RG: we are mostly stating the problem, not coming with a solution. That's why we need the longer discussion.

### WG Charter
* PA: I wanted to ask something about permissions for merging editorial changes for the mission. Is that something that will impact horizontal review?
* SC: No. I would just still like that update on the mission to go through even while in horizontal review to have an accurate representation of the work.
* PA: I just wanted to keep the ball rolling.
* SC: Sure. We can capture this conversation here in the minutes.
* PA: We need that for the horizontal review, once WebID is merged I'll ping the different parts of W3C to get the review started.
* SC: +1
*