Create 2025-01-08.md

meetings/2025-01-08.md

@@ -0,0 +1,86 @@
+# W3C Solid Community Group: Weekly
+
+* Date: 2025-01-08T14:00:00Z
+* Call: https://meet.jit.si/solid-cg
+* Chat: https://matrix.to/#/#solid_specification:gitter.im
+* Repository: https://github.com/solid/specification
+* Status: Agenda
+
+
+## Present
+* Michiel de Jong
+* Grace Elcock (observer)
+* [elf Pavlik](https://elf-pavlik.hackers4peace.net)
+* [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/w3c-cg/solid/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
+
+* elf Pavlik
+
+## Topics
+
+### Call for Review: Adding solid:storageDescription to Solid Terms
+URL: https://github.com/solid/vocab/pull/95
+
+Proposed by SC.
+* MdJ: pretty straight forward, needs few mroe reveiws
+
+### Charter update
+https://github.com/w3c-cg/solid/pull/21
+
+* MdJ: Still waiting for the reveiew from Hadrian
+* RG: We should put the change up for vote
+* MdJ: It makes sense to do it during the meeting, maybe next week if Hadrian reviews it. We also send out email for principled objections. Melvin expressed a different preference but I believe he didn't object. https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-solid/2024Dec/0012.html
+* RG: There are also suggestions by Ted.
+* MdJ: Do we agre that Melvin's email is not a principled objection?
+* eP: It sounds to me like a preference not an objection.
+* eP: Do you have admin acces to that solid cg repo?
+* MdJ: No
+* eP: There is alsosome IPR check that didn't pass
+
+ACTION: MdJ to contact Ian about permissions on Solid CG repo and the IPR check
+
+### Plans for Q1
+
+* MdJ: Focusing on Pivot, making changes after testing it.
+* ...: Also planning to work on Trusted Apps
+* ...: Security review for Pivot/CSS, there was a discussion with Matthias, Jesse and me. Documentation of CSS states that it is unfit for hosting Personally Identifying Information. We were all planning to do a security review for Pivot. Once it is reviewed we can communicate it to people.
+* ...: Perfofrmance is still separate from security. Unless you are in enterprise situation, where you want impecable performance.
+* ...: Trusted apps is still unsoved topic. We either have no solution or to many solutions. I want to show that the launcher app with two bookmark apps showing data portability with fine grained access control.
+* eP: are you only focused on the special case where the Resource Owner and the End user are the same?
+* MdJ: Yes, it's just one user using two apps, no sharing.
+* MdJ: Also thinking about some milestones for the Data Modules
+* ...: I'm also presenting a lightning talk on FOSDEM, it will not be focused on Solid but it will mention Solid.
+* RG: I don't have any firm plans, just talking to few people. Also started few threads on IETF mailing list, mostly talking about media types and microtypes. This links to the question of how you organize data in Solid pod. How to organize complex information, how to have pagination and communicate it.
+* eP: Does it also relate to evolvability of the system?
+* RG: I'm thinking about use putting the data on the pod, if they change it and the clients come to read that data, do they need something out of band, like client to client spec, or they just can rely on media types to understand the data. This also narrows the scope for the C2C specs. You may need to specify things that are handled by media types.
+* eP: Since RDF is a bit special when it comes to media types, do you focus on that or you focus on both RDF and non-RDF.
+* RG: For example pagination, Fred gives example of having 10000 triples and doesn't want to serve it. We can do it by introducing new serialization, new feature, new parameters for content negotiations. There are few ways to solve it. One would be microtypes, another would be a QUERY method. This is not about RDF but how to organize data in genear. There is non-RDF data as well which has links in it. Also when you just want pieces of that data, how do you negotiate for that. 
+* eP: There are use caseas in LWS WG, we should make sure that some of the use caes are representative for the problem you are trying to solve.
+* RG: There are some use cases, for example Sarven's use case about hosting HTML pages.
+* RG: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2025JanMar/0007.html
+* RG: What are the things that we want to take to LWS?
+* MdJ: LWS will just define storage and IdP. I don't even thing that it is that exciting in that sense. They will need to choose between WAC, ACP and SAI. It's up to them, they have some time to think about it. I don't expecte them to come up with something that works for data portability or sharing. I expect just very robust spec for what we have now as Solid Protocol and probably ACP. Possibly Solid-OIDC, but there is also talk about OAuth2 and UMA. I'm more excited about research and development that is happening in SolidOS or SAI. There is even discussion about blank nodes in the patch. I think they will maybe solve a little more when it comes to paging and resumable uploads. I don't expect anything about client part, charter makes client to client out of scope.
+* RG: What are the things that we as community feel we shouldn't only discuss among us but bring attention of the WG to it. What as the community we think should be available.
+* MdJ: It would make sense if CG had consensus which we could bring to LWS. We don't have it so it is up to them to pick what they prefer. There is no single voice comming from community, other than what is already in the protocol spec.
+* RG: There is the whole issue how we want to support features for C2C spects that are relevant for the server. There is one orther issue raised last year, about pod portability. Do we want to work on the solution for that?
+* MdJ: That would make sense.
+* eP: I think we should try to make a joint meeting between CG and WG to sync up and discuss how the collaboration should look.
+* eP: For me access delegation is a key requirement, both for authorizing apps and group based access control.
+*