<scribe> scribe: elf-pavlik

<Mitzi> https://github.com/solid/information/blob/master/solid-vision.md

Solid Vision

https://github.com/solid/information/blob/master/solid-vision-mission-values.md

<Mitzi> https://github.com/solid/information/blob/master/solid-vision-mission-values.md

justinwb: mission / vision sounds like something that TimBL puts together or at least says yes (endorses) as Solid director

<Mitzi> https://github.com/solid/information/issues/180

justinwb: i don't refer to anything specific in this draft, just wanted to share this point

Mitzi: agreed

maxidorius: is the question - how do we see Solid project or you try to find best definition asking community input

Mitzi: Tim speaks regularly on this, I want to write it down

maxidorius: do you need more community input ?
... some people answered all your questions

Mitzi: I stay open to suggestions
... panel could take all the input from the issue and based on this text make a proposal

Kayode: do you mean W3C WG proposal ?

Mitzi: I though of a PR to Solid repo

justinwb: do you see it as something tied to roadmap?
... i see it as part of something we would discuss for the roadmap
... same panel could work on that

michielbdejong: i still don't understand what the specific topic would be

justinwb: answering - what is the thing that Solid should enable for the whole web ecosystem
... it should tie with use cases and spec work

elf-pavlik: I think of general 'steering panel' working on vision, roadmap etc.

michielbdejong: I saw panel about documentation and find it great (specific)
... i want to work on app authorization and we could work on that as panel

maxidorius: in many projects i work on, it always had something like 'steering committee', here obviously Tim would lead it
... as a person who needs to implement a Solid server, I don't have a list of what I have to implement

michielbdejong: very current list exists and we have idea of what we want to add

justinwb: i understand that you look for definite specification - more what we have drafted so far

<michielbdejong> maxidorius: https://github.com/inrupt/pod-server/issues/15

maxidorius: i still want to know if i want to make proposal or participate in panel who to coordinate it with

justinwb: we aim at having specification for solid server by the end of this year
... repository already exists where everyone can participate already
... that document links to other specs we either work on or already became standard - like LDP

<michielbdejong> proposed additions on top of that current 'roughly 0.8' spec include: encryption, server-side shape validation, verifiable credentials, spec text structure, app authorization, ...

justinwb: we aim to have that 1.0 by the end of the year and panels start as needed to complete specific parts of this effort

<michielbdejong> client-client spec, triple pattern fragments, sign-in methods other than username/passwords, and server-to-server notifications (webhooks)

Mitzi: in this process we can't make everyone happy right away but we need to start with something
... as for the specs, editors of each document will have a lot to say about what goes into it

<michielbdejong> codenamedmitri: you're unmuted

michielbdejong: we have a better list of what we currently have, we call it spec 0.8 - i put it above on IRC
... panels will produce spec change once they done with resolving issues they work on
... sometimes they could propose incompatible or alternative solution
... for example it could happen with Verifiable Credentials
... another one Triple Pattern Fragments which could replace current SPARQL GET

Mitzi: don't feel worried about starting a panel, if we need we can always remove it or replace with other panel

<codenamedmitri> +1 to app authz panel! :)

<justinwb> +1

michielbdejong: I would like to start Application Authorization panel and work there with people who already want to work on it

+1

Mitzi: please submit PR

Jim: what about interoperability panel (which includes ontologies)

justinwb: anybody can participate in any panel
... only changes to the spec have certain editorial process

elf-pavlik: vocabs / ontolgies sounds more specific than interop

justinwb: interop would cover shapes, discover, vocabs etc. and i would rather start from there
... data interoperability

<michielbdejong> https://github.com/solid/culture/pull/41

codenamedmitri: discussion about querying would get their own panel or it would fall under the general spec

michielbdejong: people talked about TPF panel but we should have more general one like - querying

codenamedmitri: i see couple of interrelated topics: DID, VC encryption

Mitzi: I would recommend to focus on some deliverable

codenamedmitri: each one has some specific deliverable

justinwb: I wonder if we should have DID panel or Identity panel ?
... VC and encryption might fit together

<michielbdejong> identity panel

<michielbdejong> solid cryptography panel (signing + encryption)

maxidorius: one of the people i work with has project where they create data models where all vendors can use the same schemas
... would that data interop panel work on this?

justinwb: yes i think that's part of it
... besides vocabs / schemas / ontologies it would also focus on discovery and shapes

<maxidorius> justinwb: my IDs on Git<smth> is same as here

<justinwb> got it :)

<michielbdejong> elf-pavlik: panels should be defined/named about the requirements, not about the specific technologies.

Mitzi: please make PRs for panels you would like to start
... we still haven't decide if we want that Solid Vision panel

maxidorius: i think vision fits together with roadmap

michielbdejong: we may have situation that this panel writes vision which other don't agree with

Mitzi: panel only creates proposal but doesn't have the last word
... michielbdejong how would you do it - document the vision ?

michielbdejong: I think we all have pretty good idea about shared vision, one can write it down to explain it to people

Mitzi: explaining vision panel ?

michielbdejong: I have separate topic
... before I joined people wanted to rewrite current server in TypeScript
... I thought it's healthy to maintain 2 implementations since also for WG process that would come helpful
... now I see that we may not have enough manpower to maintain both implementations
... especially with spec changes coming up and need to keep up with that

<Mitzi> ok

<Mitzi> will wrap up in 3 mins

<ewingson> cunextweek

michielbdejong: so it would be nice to keep NSS alive but maybe it makes sense to focus on new implementation
... i will stop recommending people to dedicate time to maintain NSS and rather invite to contribute to new implementation

maxidorius: i will implement another server

michielbdejong: open source and which language ?

maxidorius: open source - Java

Mitzi: next week I really can't lead the meeting on Thursday
... let's move it to Wednesday

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)

Present: Mitzi elf-pavlik Max justinwb kezike ewingson
Found Scribe: elf-pavlik
Inferring ScribeNick: elf-pavlik

WARNING: No meeting title found!
You should specify the meeting title like this:
<dbooth> Meeting: Weekly Baking Club Meeting


WARNING: No meeting chair found!
You should specify the meeting chair like this:
<dbooth> Chair: dbooth


WARNING: No date found!  Assuming today.  (Hint: Specify
the W3C IRC log URL, and the date will be determined from that.)
Or specify the date like this:
<dbooth> Date: 12 Sep 2002

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.)