Name suggestions for the proposed working group

[pchampin]

Several W3C members objected to the creation of the Solid Working Group, arguing that the charter seemed too much biased towards a per-conceived solution, rather than trying to solve a problem. See https://github.com/w3c/charter-drafts/issues/458 .

In order to respond to these objections, we intend to submit a new charter where the Solid specifications will be used as input, but where the name and mission of the working group are expressed in more generic terms. The mission has been updated but the name is still to be decided.

Please make proposals for the name of the upcoming Working Group by responding to this issue with the text:

PROPOSAL: <your proposal here>

optionally followed by an explanation/rationale for the name you propose. You may also respond with comments on previous proposals.

[elf-pavlik]

PROPOSAL: Protected Data Platform or Protected Linked Data Platform

Term Protected Resource is an established term used, for example, across OAuth2 family of specs. Data Platform takes inspiration from Linked Data Platform

---

Side note: If we convert this issue into a GitHub discussion, we will have a threaded conversation and an upvote feature.

[csarven]

PROPOSAL: Socially-aware Storage WG

It is a bit TimBL speak and fun and kind of meaningful and kind of not...

PROPOSAL: Social and Personal Data WG

Or something that hits "personal" and/or "social".

PROPOSAL: Personal Storage WG

PROPOSAL: Control Yourself WG

PROPOSAL: Fixing the Web WG

PROPOSAL: Enquire Within WG

[elf-pavlik]

:-1: To using term social. When it comes to social media, people tend to think about microblogging and dumb social networks like Twitter, TikTok, and Instagram, which are often accused of messing up the minds of the youth.

:+1: To using terms like collaborative and online collaboration instead. Which, to me, it covers current silos like Wikipedia, Github, MS Teams, Asana, Jira, you name it. It also includes services provided by popular open-source platforms like GitLab, Discourse, RocketChat, OpenFoodNetwork, you name it again.

[csarven]

@elf-pavlik Perhaps but is this issue for just suggestions or are we collecting thoughts as well? Because I don't think "Linked Data" in the name of a WG is going to fly =)

[melvincarvalho]

PROPOSAL: Social Linked Data WG

Was the original name of Solid. It implies an identity element. And in weaving the web, tim writes, "The Web is more a Social innovation than a technical one". Hence implies a step towards the completion of the web project. Social implies user generated content, which in turn is stored with different privacy gradients (implying storage options). The heavy emphasis on Linked Data as a solution is included too. And it can be seen as an upgrade of LDP to include Identity. If LDP is a REC, then Social LD(P) could be too.

[michielbdejong]

PROPOSAL: Personal Data Store WG PROPOSAL: Personal Linked Data Store WG

[michielbdejong]

PROPOSAL: Bring Your Own Storage WG PROPOSAL: Remote Storage WG

[melvincarvalho]

PROPOSAL: Remote Storage WG

This might be an idea, the RS community is still active I believe, and has some good devs. Some could be folded in.

[michielbdejong]

PROPOSAL: Personal Online Datastore WG

[TallTed]

PROPOSAL: Socially Semantically Integrating Data and Apps WG (SIDAWG) (pronounced sea-dawg)

My photos, posts, comments, etc., live in my storage space (sometimes called a pod), and SIDAWG apps access all that data in my storage space as well as in the storage spaces of my contacts, in order to present a unified view of our photos, conversations, etc.

Browsers display ads (no matter how many blockers you have), so SIDAWG apps (which often run within browsers) can also display ads, providing a revenue stream for the app authors, and thus incentivizing some shift from the monolithic social media apps/sites.

[CxRes]

PROPOSAL: Semantically Linked Decentralized Data WG PROPOSAL: Shared Linked Decentralized Data WG

(still pronounced solid or maybe sled)

Seems closest to the mission!

[CxRes]

PROPOSAL: Samaritan Owned Linked Data WG (still solid)

[CxRes]

PROPOSAL: Samaritan Owned Linked Information Depository WG (actually SOLID)!

[CxRes]

I prefer not to use "Personal" or "Social" as descriptors of Data in Solid (ahem PUMPKIN) is for all kinds of data as I observed and @timbl re-enforced in CG meeting on 2024-03-06.

[TallTed]

"Samaritan" doesn't seem appropriate, here.

PROPOSAL: Semantically Integrating Distributed Data and Apps WG (SIDDAWG) (pronounced sea-dawg)

Mostly the same as above...

[bourgeoa]

PROPOSAL : Linked HTTP storage

[elf-pavlik]

:-1: to personal, I see data spaces for groups/organizations as one of the key features of solid. A big part of the complexity comes with that compared to data space fully controlled by a single person. We are collaborating here using @solid organization rather than someone's personal space.

[elf-pavlik]

PROPOSAL: Sovereign Secure Data Spaces or Sovereign Secure Linked Data Spaces

inspired by @pchampin's comment on matrix chat

[cwilso]

As I've given strong direct feedback on this topic, I wanted to share it in this thread:

Your working group name should capture what space your working group is trying to solve problems in; as a new area, this is especially important. I would suggest that it's an anti-pattern to try to backronym it into something cute like SIDAWG (sorry, Ted, to pick on a suggestion from you; it's not the only one) because "Semantically Integrating Data and Apps" seems like not a 1:1 alignment with your charter, nor is it instantly understandable. "Personal Data Storage WG" is understandable; "SOLID WG" is not (unless you already know what the SOLID protocol is).

(I will also point out that this is about the WG name to me; your spec may still be called SOLID or PUMPKIN or whatever else you want, because you're down in the details then.)

[CxRes]

Bouncing off @elf-pavlik idea, how about just:

PROPOSAL: Sovereign Linked Data WG (Sorry, credit belongs completely to @pchampin)

or even,

PROPOSAL Sovereign Linked Information Depository WG

[CxRes]

If @TallTed does not prefer Samaritan,

PROPOSAL: Self-owned Linked Data WG

or,

PROPOSAL: Self-owned Linked Information Depository WG

I think it really captures what we are doing!

[melvincarvalho]

Self-owned

Can also have negative connotations such as "self own". Though playful and amusing.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/self-own

[balessan]

👎 to personal, I see data spaces for groups/organizations as one of the key features of solid.

I prefer not to use "Personal" or "Social" as descriptors of Data in Solid (ahem PUMPKIN) is for all kinds of data as I observed and @timbl re-enforced in CG meeting on 2024-03-06.

I am also in favor of avoiding "Personal" or "Social" as we, at Startin'blox are involved in a few European data spaces where we see an interest for solid as a protocol enabling efficient data sharing between organisations.

[bourgeoa]

PROPOSAL : Linked Web Storage

[TallTed]

But it's about much more than storage...

[cwilso]

@TallTed can you articulate what more it is about that is critical to reference?

[bourgeoa]

But it's about much more than storage...

On the protocol itself or on the general SOLID vision ?

On the protocol I see it as a RW web storage specification that use :

• web protocols to access all stored elements (any data type)
  • web URIs
  • HTTP protocol (Headers, web operations ...)
• Linked data documents to :
  • set/discover relations between stored elements (container/resource)
  • authorize access to container/resource
  • identify Agents (storage owners, client users)
  • interoperability discovery via typeIndex

On top of the protocol and for the Vision you need at least some

• authentication system for Agents (Identity provider)
• interaction between agents through messaging systems
• shared/distributed data structure

[TallTed]

I think the protocol(s) (the names of which may or may not include any reference to "Solid") must take into account that there may be multiple users with their own identifiers (and even multiple identifiers per user), multiple storages (potentially multiple storages per user), and multiple apps reading from and writing to those storages. All of these must be loosely coupled, such that any given app can discover, read from, and write to all relevant storages for all users involved in a given network, whether that's business, community, family, or otherwise.

This is about decentralization and democratization of the Web.

For example, I want to be able to see a photo album, constructed on the fly, that includes all the pictures saved to all the storage locations for myself and all the people I link to as family, taken on a particular date or at a particular location, a la Flickr and its compatriots.

For example, I want to see (and be able to join!) a dynamically assembled, threaded conversation, starting with an initial post, with responses to that post, and responses to those responses, etc., a la Reddit, LiveJournal, Dreamwidth.

I could spend a lot of time coming up with more user stories, but I think these few should be enough to drive development of the initial protocol(s).

[CxRes]

Reading @TallTed's comment (though this is very broad), how about:

PROPOSAL: Decentralization and Democratization WG (D&D WG)

Like the popular game for nerds that accurately describes our situation!

[megoth]

I do like the idea or reclaiming the decentralized term. And it opens for the cheeky:

PROPOSAL: Decentralized Online Storage (the DOS protocol 😅)

I first thought of it in jest, but at the same I kinda like it =p In any case, now it's out there.

There's also the longer:

PROPOSAL: Decentralized Online Storage & Identity (the Dosanti protocol? 🤔)

If anything, I hope these proposals bring some joy into this thread ^_^

[melvincarvalho]

PROPOSAL: Personal Data Store WG PROPOSAL: Personal Linked Data Store WG

@michielbdejong given that you were one of the two named objectors to the group being named Solid, could you give some indication of which of these names you could live with? I do agree that "Solid" itself has become coupled with something specific, namely the solid protocol 0.10. Would loosening it to the more generic "Social Linked Data" work for you?

Tantek (who was the other named objector) eventually accepted SoLiD (ie Social Linked Data) in the Social Web WG, as it was back then, after some discussion, leading to Andrei creating the first spec.

Perhaps you could upvote the suggestions you like, and downvote ones that could be problematic?

[bourgeoa]

,👎 for decentralisation, it is splitting things and says nothing about interoperability with data relations or sharing data structures, which is the purpose of linked data in typeIndex documents.

Is typeIndex part of the actual specification? Is there a need for a kind of shex/shacl shared collection ?

[bourgeoa]

@TallTed I have updated https://github.com/solid/solid-wg-charter/issues/73#issuecomment-2027438080 to better take in consideration your expectations on decentralisation and democratisation, these are political issues that could be expressed as interoperability via linked data and linked data structure discovery.

[melvincarvalho]

for decentralisation, it is splitting things and says nothing about interoperability with data relations or sharing data structures, which is the purpose of linked data in typeIndex documents.

It's primarily a federated model

[CxRes]

@bourgeoa You cannot look at decentralization in isolation. It must go hand in hand with democratization (which is all about the shared consensus i.e. linked data, interop etc.). Solid specification proper leans more towards addressing decentralization concerns (though it deals with some democratization concerns) whereas client-client specs lean more towards democratization concerns (though they depend on decentralization).

I don't know why, but I am liking Dungeons and Dragons even more now!

[melvincarvalho]

I thought I'd add this, though it's not a personal suggestion, might be some food for thought. A paper, that I came across, presented at www '23:

SISSI: An Architecture for Semantic Interoperable Self-Sovereign Identity-based Access Control on the Web

https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/3543507.3583409

[CxRes]

Sorry, but I absolutely could not resist! Be very inspired:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iah-VBDeoE8

Any charter for D&D WG must begin with this speech!

[ebremer]

PROPOSAL : Distributed Apps, Identities, and Storages (DAIS - A dais or daïs is a raised platform at the front of a room or hall, usually for one or more speakers or honored guests.)

PROPOSAL: Apps, Multi-identity, and Authentication for Distributed Environments of URL/URI Storages (AMADEUS)

[michielbdejong]

Here is the list of 32 names that were suggested, sorted sort-to-long, then alphabetically:

Enquire Within WG
Fixing the Web WG
Remote Storage WG
Control Yourself WG
Personal Storage WG
Linked Web Storage WG
Social Linked Data WG
Linked HTTP storage WG
Personal Data Store WG
Sovereign Linked Data WG
Bring Your Own Storage WG
Self-owned Linked Data WG
Socially-aware Storage WG
Protected Data Platform WG
Social and Personal Data WG
Personal Online Datastore WG
Personal Linked Data Store WG
Samaritan Owned Linked Data WG  (still solid WG)
Decentralized Online Storage WG  (DOS WG)
Sovereign Secure Data Spaces WG
Protected Linked Data Platform WG
Shared Linked Decentralized Data WG
Sovereign Secure Linked Data Spaces WG
Decentralization and Democratization WG  (D&D WG)
Semantically Integrating Data and Apps WG  (SIDAWG) (pronounced sea-dawg)
Semantically Linked Decentralized Data WG
Decentralized Online Storage & Identity WG  (Dosanti WG)
Self-owned Linked Information Depository WG
Distributed Apps, Identities, and Storages WG  (DAIS WG - A dais or daïs is a raised platform at the front of a room or hall)
Samaritan Owned Linked Information Depository WG  (actually SOLID WG)
Semantically Integrating Distributed Data and Apps WG  (SIDDAWG) (pronounced sea-dawg)
Apps, Multi-identity, and Authentication for Distributed Environments of URL/URI Storages WG  (AMADEUS WG)

As discussed in the CG meeting today I'll set up a topic where we can thumbs-up and thumbs-down to see which one resonates most. Will post the link here once I've set it up.

[gatemezing]

+1 to "Sovereign Linked Data WG"

[melvincarvalho]

As discussed in the CG meeting today I'll set up a topic where we can thumbs-up and thumbs-down to see which one resonates most.

Would it be possible to take into account the votes already cast on this thread?

[CxRes]

I would rather these be sorted in the order they were suggested (which is close enough to random or just be randomized) than by another characteristic, as that is likely to affect the decision in subtle ways.

[elf-pavlik]

@CxRes it is too late for that, the issue is already done, and AFAIK, there is no way to reorder comments https://github.com/solid/solid-wg-charter/issues/75 This mostly gathers feedback; we will still pick one CG recommendation during one of the CG weekly meetings.

[CxRes]

@CxRes it is too late for that, the issue is already done, and AFAIK, there is no way to reorder comments #75 This mostly gathers feedback; we will still pick one CG recommendation during one of the CG weekly meetings.

I wish mine was posted with the Silicon Valley video thumbnail as well, then it would be 🥇. :-P

[TallTed]

@michielbdejong -- Might be good to propose a closing date, or at least a "we will discuss this on the xyz call starting yyyy-mm-ddZhh:mm", as I think that more people have participated in the suggesting than in the up/down polling.

[TallTed]

@pchampin set up a page that summarizes the votes found on #75

[oolivo]

Hey all,

It's unclear to me why we actually need a new name? I understand that 2-3 people objected to the name. But I thought that's why a council was formed to review the objections and determine which ones should be sustained and which ones should be overruled.

It feels like we're making concessions to try and reduce the number of objections for the council to review, but this is a pretty big (and contentious) one. Wouldn't we want to Council to first determine whether the name needs changing or not in the first place? Is there zero possibility that we can just keep the original name at this point?

Most of the names on this list may actually trigger additional objections from other technologies and groups. There are plenty of efforts working on decentralized storage or PDS's. Solid is much more than that. And we may be picking an argument or debate with technologies that are trying to solve that specific problem space. When someone suggested naming the group the PDS WG it raised several subsequent objections from organizations working on PDS technologies. I worry that this will trigger a similar response if we choose a triggering name. So why are we choosing a new name if it's not actually clear that we have to yet? Shouldn't we just wait for the council to deliberate on this? Even members of the council have expressed confusion as to why this isn't just called the Solid charter, so I suspect we may have support for just keeping the name as is. Am I missing something obvious?

[cwilso]

I believe the general expectation is that the Council will likely just return the charter to the Team to rework and bring it to a new AC vote. In general, Councils are not supposed to do detailed adjudication and directions to repair for sub-issues.

I'm not sure why members of the council would have expressed confusion as to why this isn't called the Solid charter, since the council was formed for something CALLED the "Solid WG Charter". (You know my feelings on the matter, of course.)

[timbl]

The Council can also override the Formal Objections and let it go though without further AC review. This may certainly happen if the charter proposal has been modified to take into account the sorts of issue the objectors brought up.

[cwilso]

It is technically true that the Council could override the Formal Objections and let it go through without further AC review. That was not the Team's recommendation, but it could possibly happen - but I think it's probable that if that were so, it would have to be the charter that was submitted, not a revised one (or the revised one would have to be approved by all those who voted or explicitly abstained on the original charter vote). There are only three paths, though: 1) The Council can broker consensus via changes to the charter that would remove the objections; 2) The Council upholds the objections (aka the charter fails), though in this case they can recommend mitigations, or 3) the Council overrules the objection - in this last case, there are no required changes (e.g. it cannot require the changes to the charter that have already been suggested.)

(relevent Process: https://www.w3.org/2023/Process-20231103/#council. As per https://www.w3.org/2023/Process-20231103/#CharterReview, I would expect any substantive changes to trigger at least an approval review request from those in the AC who originally voted on the charter; that's certainly the norm.)

I would suggest that such an override is unlikely in this case, for reasons I can't discuss outside the council+Team, but I could be wrong.

As to the naming, your #justsayin point is a red herring. The charter proposal for which the Council was formed was named "SOLID WG Charter", and those who asked for the group to be renamed did so because TAG and AB members are asked to be on a bunch of different councils - and just having the groups named by what month they started in makes it hard to keep them straight. It is CERTAINLY no indicator that multiple council members "think this work should be called Solid" - just that we need to keep the different councils and their mailing lists straight.