Edit: I’ve posted a simplified and clearer example below as a comment.
I have a question to the usage of the ACL module in @inrupt/solid-client.
I create a new resource locally, send it to the pod, where a new container and the resource is persisted.
Hierarchy like this:
.
|-- my-example
| |-- new-container
| | |-- new-resource.ttl
I want to set the ACL now for both the new resource and the new container to: public: read-only, agent: control
I do this with:
setAgentResourceAccess(resourceAcl, 'https://janschill.net/profile/card#me', {
read: false, write: false, append: false, control: true
})
setPublicResourceAccess(resourceAcl, {
read: true, write: false, append: false, control: false
})
Both ACL files are created when I push everything up to the pod, but I lose control. Looking at the containers newly created ACL file tells me that I (WebId) have weird access rights:
n0:ControlReadWrite
a n1:Authorization;
n1:accessTo sc:;
n1:agent <mailto:schill@hey.com>;
n1:default sc:;
n1:mode n1:Control, n1:Read, n1:Write.
This is indeed my email address, but I am not referenced with my WebId like it is done in other ACLs with n1:agent c:me
for example.
There are also these two entries, which I don’t quite understand, but it seems to be the controls, I’ve set?
:16143697092612634176570800957
a n1:Authorization;
n1:agent c:me;
n1:default sc:;
n1:mode n1:Control, n1:Read, n1:Write.
:16143697092639940288503178427
a n1:Authorization; n1:accessTo sc:; n1:agent c:me; n1:mode n1:Control.
Is there something obvious I am missing? Thank you for the help.