<scribe> scribe: elf-pavlik
<Mitzi> https://github.com/solid/information/blob/master/solid-vision.md
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.)[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]