[New Work Item]: Access Requests and Grants

[jeswr]

This is a new work item proposal to create a specification for access requests and grants.

The Linked Web Storage Working Group should soon have an editors draft for access requests and grants. This new work item is to 'backport' that ED to Solid in time for Solid26; ideally with this document reference from the Solid26 implementors guide.

Explain what you are trying to do, using no jargon or acronyms.

Provide a way for clients to request access to resources.

How is it done today, and what are the limits of the current practice?

SAI has a notion of access requests. However, there is no widespread implementation, and the approach does not match the approach being taken by the Linked Web Storage Working Group.

What is new in your approach, and why do you think it will be successful?

This approach will make it easier for Solid to conform with / depend upon Linked Web Storage.

How are you involving participants from multiple skill sets and global locations in this work item? (Skill sets: technical, design, product, marketing, anthropological, and UX. Global locations: Africa, the Americas, APAC, Europe, Middle East, Antarctica.)

At present we are not -- this is a clear gap.

What actions are you taking to make this work item accessible to a non-technical audience?

Surrounding this work item and the Solid26 implementors guide within the CG, the proposers of this work item are also developing:

• best practices and documentation for technical audiences,
• UX demos, briefing materials and publicity for non-technical audiences.

[csarven]

Could we not go "all in" on what Solid26 should be based on zero incubation of unstandardised work? And when I say we, I mean the CG. I thought Solid26 was based on making the best of the current Solid ecosystem "as is", as opposed to a forced attempt to materialise something just to put a stamp on things to satisfy some closed board. So much for "Solid" and "community".

We have #253 with some implementation and based on actual "gaps" that were actually observed in the community. Would it be feasible to entertain the idea that there is prior work that should be taken into account before giving an open pass for other stuff? https://github.com/solid/authorization-panel/blob/main/proposals/ldn-access-request.md . All of that is based off the notion of requesting access, quite literally: solid/data-interoperability-panel#13 (comment) .

See also w3c-cg/solid#57 (comment) since at this point much of this is a repeat, and it is disappointing that there is no coordination here. It'd be much appreciated if there is some minimal effort to acknowledge or support prior work. But here we are.