<scribe> scribe: elf-pavlik
Jackson: 5.1.3 adds dialog that
shows what you are allowing app, currently for global scope
eventually for more granular scopes
... we want community input before deploying it to
solid.community and main inrupt.net
elf-pavlik: how does it work
Jackson: WAC still has the
trustedApp implementation
... this change adds new login flow
... if you already logged in it will skip directly to
authorization page
... you can select from: read, write, append, control access
for this app
... it breaks some applications which try to automatically log
in to NSS
... already created fix for solid-auth-cli
timbl: if you you use trusted app
pane, you can edit list of apps
... if you have very trusted app you can give it full
access
... you don't have to give global permissions
... you could grant access to particular container
Mitzi: can you explain about new project team for granular authorization
Jackson: this subject sparked a lot of conversation
<michielbdejong> https://github.com/solid/solid-spec/issues/176
Jackson: current pane has very
global scope
... apps need to communicate what kind of things they need
access to
... we want to form a panel to address this problem - granular
authorization panel
... i have gdoc which i will post in issue mentioned by
michielbdejong
... we don't want for my chat app to read chat have access to
read everything
... core solid team will help determine those panels
<bblfish> sorry for being late
elf-pavlik: how does it relate to Type Registry
michielbdejong: TR helps to
discover where information stays located
... but type index is about data types
... it's a large part which app you would want to use with
that
... chat app will usually just present resources with type
related to chat
... but you could have chat related to music or medical records
and you might not want to mix authorizations for those
<justinwb> i'm here
<justinwb> already raised my hand
justinwb: two things, first we're
in process of governance model
... putting together what you proposing, what is the scope,
what you looking to produce
... does it overlap WAC spec, WebID-OIDC
... you talk about authorization but you also talk about types
of data, which also overlaps with discoverability
... we don't want to end up with two different models for
describing types of information
RubenVerborgh: in terms of Type
Registry we have to see it from more generic perspective
... we expect that we can replace those manual accesses by
shapes and footprints
... to make it as automatic as possible
elf-pavlik: asks about triple level access control @bergos developed for LDApp
RubenVerborgh: Type index works
more for discovery
... triple level access would be more substantial change
Mitzi: maybe you could put description of the aim, people would know what they sign up for
<bblfish> I suppose one could have them be orthogonal, but also allow ACL rules which allowed people to create a group of resources to which they could assign one Access type.
Jackson: please check authorization page on dev subdomain
<Mitzi> agenda item: https://github.com/solid/solid-spec/issues/188
<Mitzi> presented by Benoit from Startin'blox
balessan: we implement linked
data using Solid
... some use cases require federation, in particular
distributed project management tools
... Solid seems more about personal data pods, not sure how we
can go to architecture where you have something like diaspora
and other federated systems
... we have custom implementation what would be a list of
sources
... I look for something similar to ActivityPub
RubenVerborgh: I replied in
issue, I don't fully understand
... within solid we on purpose don't identify pods as
concepts
<bblfish> A pod could just be the root folder of a pod?
RubenVerborgh: since we focus on layer of linked data - linked documents
<bblfish> +1 for concrete examples
RubenVerborgh: you could add concrete example
balessan: we have two instances
where you can get directory of people working on some
projects
... we share across those instances similar projects
... we can't get lists of projects without knowing lists of
pods
RubenVerborgh: I think we need to
iterate in issue more
... I think you may need to link to projects
balessan: I'll add more details
in issue
... I can present quickly what we work on
justinwb: when i read this issue
i had question if you want to describe peer discovery
network
... example would be really great
balessan: as StartinBlox we work
on applications using linked data
... client apps using web components
... we did some work in non standard way
... we would like to switch to Solid
... we investigate RubenVerborgh's work on LDFlex
Mitzi: Matthias_Evering you wanted to talk about ethical web principles
Matthias_Evering: I've read email about principles we could adapt
Mitzi: it's possibly that we could create community group to talk about those ethical principles and related topics
RubenVerborgh: great idea, let's
not forget that Tim is looking to come back to original vision
of The Web
... Solid wants to empower people
... Solid Team, i see them as stewards of the project
... having those principles would be very needed
justinwb: I second RubenVerborgh, its very in line with the spirit what we all trying to do
RubenVerborgh: within community
group we can have different task forces
... I wouldn't recommend a separate CG
<TallTed> +1 task force or the like. no need for another CG
Mitzi: how would you recommend setting it up
<TallTed> a/k/a sub-committee
RubenVerborgh: different taks
forces can have separate meetings, use same mailing list for
coordination
... I don't think we should have multiple CGs for Solid
specific topics
<RubenVerborgh> Example: DCAT W3C working group, has subgroups, for instance Content Negotiation for DCAT
justinwb: I think we can just
have action item to look at ideas how to incorporate ethical
web principles
... i like how straight forward and concise they are
KjetilK: separate CG could be
broader than Solid
... bunch of technologies could be interested
... for example fediverse with ActivityPub etc.
... we could also have solid CG more technical oriented
... this dedicated CG would stay more socially oriented
... many people with social interest could find technical
discussions overwhelming
... we need broad societal angle
<RubenVerborgh> RubenVerborgh: I talked with an ethics research today, they are looking at ethics of data sharing, consent, GDPR etc. independently of technology as well
Mitzi: My could setup one call for that topic and repository to document conversation
<RubenVerborgh> +1 to what Mitzi said
<bblfish> +1
<KjetilK> +1
Mitzi: if it starts growing beyond solid we could move it out into dedicated workspace
+1
<armando> +1
<RubenVerborgh> https://github.com/solid/query-ldflex/issues/26
<RubenVerborgh> https://github.com/solid/solid-spec/issues/189
RubenVerborgh: only looks at
single profile document, why doesn't it query linked
documents
... if you automatically start fetching related data, we can
have trust problem here
... if we fetch data what should be the scope of the
query
... I don't see easy answer to it
... more important to first study the problem
bblfish: in my thesis I look at
it for access control rules
... you can see it as monads from category theory which you can
flatten
... it depends what you do if you want to follow links
aggressively or not
justinwb: I see it as very
context dependent thing
... client which asks stays probably in the best position to
determine how they want to approach it
... data could inform client if 'there is not enough
already'
TallTed: this gets very complex
very quickly
... it stays related but not directed tied to Verifiable Claims
and Verifiable Credentials
... for example to verify if RubenVerborgh said that I'm an
excellent scholar
<bblfish> A guard following access control rules would need a well defined logic as to what links to follow as in that case the client wants to know ahead of time how the guard will reason so that it can guess what the right credential to show is.
TallTed: you may trust individual
no matter what they say, or only on some topics (eg. of
expertise)
... the more factors you have to consider the more difficult it
becomes
RubenVerborgh: the problem is
that apps ask questions
... depending how my data is organized it will come from one or
more documents
<Zakim> RubenVerborgh, you wanted to nuance Justin's point ;-)
justinwb: shapes really help
since they provide more structure of the data
... request could rely on those shapes
<justinwb> https://w3c-dvcg.github.io/ld-signatures/
justinwb: this work is really important - Linked Data Signatures
RubenVerborgh: please look at issues I linked and share you ideas
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.154 of Date: 2018/09/25 16:35:56 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/rrs, draft minutes// Succeeded: s/but have/but also allow/ Succeeded: s/Starting Blocks/Startin'blox/ Present: Matthias_Evering elf-pavlik TallTed KjetilK RubenVerborgh armando justinwb Found Scribe: elf-pavlik Inferring ScribeNick: elf-pavlik Found Date: 06 Jun 2019 People with action items: WARNING: IRC log location not specified! (You can ignore this warning if you do not want the generated minutes to contain a link to the original IRC log.)[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]