Meeting minutes
Introduction and announcements
ericP: Are there new introductions?
bengo: is new, was working on IPFS, is a Solid fan
… has been working with dimitriz on didcoop
… experienced from the SocialWeb WG
jsalvachua: professor, has been working in formal methods, multimedia, data spaces protocols, cloud, blockchain
<ryey> scribe?
pchampin: reports from a Geneva event
… jeswr organised a session on Solid and LWS
… the event brought a few people to LWS
<pchampin> https://
<bengo> https://
jeswr: session on Solid + LWS - discussion on whether solid can be storage for web-based credentials
<jeswr> Link to slides from Global Digital Collaboration session on LWS: https://
<jeswr> Link to hackMD from Global Digital Collaboration https://
Use cases & requirements update
eBremer: PRs on user stories have been merged, there are PRs being reviewed, feel free to provide comments
pchampin: First draft of use-cases document published
… auto-publication system fixed
… there are HTML validation issues to be fixed
… such that merged PRs get automatically published as new version
… on w3.org/TR/
<bengo> Could someone link to FPWD of Use Cases? ty
w3c/lws-ucs#170
acoburn: eBremer opened PR about this, can we agree on a timeframe?
eBremer: plan: to be merged by the end of the week
ericP: anyone who says this is unrealistic?
TallTed: this is plenty of time
+ rationale for out-of-scope and deprioritized requirements
ericP: it's my expectation to have UCs that include requirements that are out-of-scope or de-prioritised
<acoburn> bengo: current working draft of use cases doc at https://
<bendm> +1, diff LGTM
<bengo> acoburn tysm
ericP: reasons: 1) there may be upcoming technologies that provide, 2) UCs that may inform development of upcoming technologies, 3) UCs that help non-tech people build an understanding, 4) avoidance of duplicate UCs
uvdsl: how do we determine which use-case is in or out of scope?
ericP: the decision is editorial, there will be annotations about which UC is deemed out-of-scope
acoburn: at this stage of the process, we want to be comprehensive. Some UCs will have requirements that are out-of-scope.
… imagine a UC has 5 requirements. 2 in-scope, 3 out-of-scope.
… if the 2 requirements become too burdensome, we could drop the UC entirely
uvdsl: how is the process exactly?
… when is the time to go through the list, when will be annotated?
ericP: there is no specific timeline
… during prioritisation
ericP: if you want to do a pass, that's possible
Research topics
jeswr: email on topics sent on the mailing list
… jackson and ben have answered
jackson: will work on it after Tuesday
bendm: his lab has been worked on authorisation and consent
… they could contribute
jeswr: at the moment it's about pointing to the state-of-the-art
… consent + ODRL - please do not invest too much time here, as it will be likely out-of-scope
joaquin: is working on ODRL for data spaces
… could provide review
rui: usage control is probably too far
… access control - should we collect practices closely to the Solid stack (WAC, ...) or also things farther away?
… there are other paradigms of access control
jeswr: the UC document will define what is in scope; there are input documents in the charter
… we should also be looking at how GDrive and AWS S3 are doing it
… not just Solid prior art
rui: most services use role-based access control, there is also attribute-based access control - should they get included?
jeswr: we should not doing it academically here
… if there is a nice categorisation into RBAC, ... fine
<jsalvachua> we are considering Relation based (going from Google Zanzibar and Amazon Cedar)
<jeswr> https://
<jsalvachua> and joining it to an Odrl Profile
<jsalvachua> ReBac
rui: Mastodon has access control personal, site-only, global
jeswr: provide pointers, don't make the wiki massive
<jsalvachua> we are using OpenFGA as engine for policy evaluation
<jsalvachua> I will check how it match here
bendm: what's the process? Given it's a wiki, should pointers be sent via email to the page lead who fits it in?
jeswr: put them straight into the wiki
<bengo> wrt Mastodon, it is completely different than what is required of an ActivityPub Conformant Server because it does not implement AP C2S
rui: in the wiki, not everyone has access
… how to get access?
ericP: you should be able to login
… join a help channel on IRC: #sysreq
<dmitriz> re wiki: haha, 'group membership gives access to resource' use case is hard! :)
kaefer3000: why "Research Topics"?
jeswr: i'll rename to "Prior Art"
acoburn: was looking at the GitHub configuration. Edititing is restricted to people with push access, ie. editors and chairs
… if we un-click that button, we don't know if ordinary GitHub users can edit the wiki
ericP: let's unclick and if we get undesired content, revert
… please test it
<bendm> I can edit! :)
ericP: we are through the agenda, is there any other business?
ericP: closes the meeting