Tom Haegemans

As we are implementing Solid Interop, we are running into the issue that there is no way to define by which application a social agent may do something with data....

Thanks! I will mention this issue there as well and you can close this one :-).

> There is an important distinction between the agent identified with a WebID and the entity defined with a `client_id`. Calling both of those identifiers a WebID would create a...

> To keep specs orthogonal, I think this should remain this way. As long as they say that RDF MUST be returned, any standard RDF serialization should do. > This...

> While I can appreciate that having multiple types of identifiers can introduce complexity, this is a _feature_ not a bug of decentralized ecosystems. It is also a feature of...

Anyhow, if we would decide against to use one identifier for an app, it would help if we could include a reference to the other in each of the documents....

Just a kind reminder for the editors (i.e. @timbl @justinwb @dmitrizagidulin @kjetilk @csarven and @RubenVerborgh) that we keep running into this issue. It would be great if this issue could...

Hi Harsh, This is indeed an important issue. With use.id we go with the agile principle: first start with something what is already known and make sure it works. Then,...

Indeed, we are eagerly awaiting the standardisation of the functionality of our access request procedure. This involves standardising the requests, adopting a vocabulary to say what app has access to...

Hi Harsh, just as an fyi, with use.id, we are currently looking into DPV. To the best of my knowledge, this seems to be most appropriate and useable one :-).