14:51:30 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #lws
14:51:35 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/11/25-lws-irc
14:51:35 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
14:51:36 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), laurens
14:52:15 <laurens> meeting: Linked Web Storage WG -- 2024-11-25
14:52:46 <laurens> agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/a19ab7dc-1753-433d-bac5-64e3ad8c0a43/20241125T100000/
14:52:46 <agendabot> clear agenda
14:52:46 <agendabot> agenda+ Introductions and announcements
14:52:46 <agendabot> agenda+ Default minutes approval
14:52:46 <agendabot> agenda+ Pending Action Items
14:52:46 <agendabot> agenda+ -> Separate repository for action items https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-lws-wg/2024Nov/0007.html
14:52:49 <agendabot> agenda+ Meetings during the holiday season
14:52:51 <agendabot> agenda+ Use-cases status
14:55:42 <eBremer> eBremer has joined #lws
14:56:59 <laurens> agenda?
14:57:39 <TallTed> TallTed has joined #lws
15:00:17 <laurens> scribe: laurens
15:00:42 <laurens> present+
15:00:56 <csarven> present+
15:01:07 <eBremer> present+
15:01:29 <TallTed> TallTed has changed the topic to: Linked Web Storage WG -- 2024-11-25 agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/a19ab7dc-1753-433d-bac5-64e3ad8c0a43/20241125T100000/
15:01:31 <TallTed> present+
15:01:57 <TallTed> RRSAgent, draft minutes
15:01:58 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/11/25-lws-minutes.html TallTed
15:02:05 <TallTed> RRSAgent, make logs public
15:02:41 <hadrian> hadrian has joined #lws
15:02:41 <jacoscaz> jacoscaz has joined #lws
15:03:15 <hadrian> hadrian has joined #lws
15:03:48 <pchampin> present+
15:03:50 <ericP> ericP has joined #lws
15:04:01 <laurens> chair: ericP
15:04:19 <hadrian> present+
15:04:25 <ericP> present+
15:04:36 <timbl_> present+
15:04:37 <jacoscaz> present+
15:04:49 <bendm> bendm has joined #lws
15:05:55 <laurens> move to agendum 1
15:05:57 <TallTed> previous meeting: https://www.w3.org/2024/11/18-lws-minutes.html
15:05:57 <TallTed> next meeting: https://www.w3.org/2024/12/02-lws-minutes.html
15:06:51 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/11/25-lws-minutes.html TallTed
15:07:48 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/11/25-lws-minutes.html TallTed
15:07:53 <bendm> present+
15:07:54 <jeswr> jeswr has joined #lws
15:07:55 <Grace> Grace has joined #lws
15:08:03 <jeswr> present+
15:08:12 <laurens> ???: Representing startin'blox, just joined w3c as official member, have been following Solid for a few years, building applications on top of parts of the specification, interested in contributing to the WG. Also involved in the data space ecosystem, at the technical level.
15:08:12 <balessan> balessan has joined #lws
15:08:28 <laurens> s/???/balessan
15:08:48 <ericP> topic: Status of UC document editors
15:09:18 <bumblefudge> bumblefudge has joined #lws
15:09:32 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/11/25-lws-minutes.html TallTed
15:09:38 <laurens> hadrian: Action item of last week on liaising with other communities
15:09:49 <laurens> hadrian: Did this with the Solid CG, already few use cases
15:09:49 <balessan> present+
15:09:56 <laurens> hadrian: Will reach out to CCG this week
15:10:12 <TallTed> i/move to agendum 1/topic: Introductions and announcements/
15:10:13 <laurens> hadrian: Had a very good conversation with people in hospitality, very interesting use cases
15:10:28 <laurens> hadrian: We already have quite a few use cases, this is very good.
15:10:45 <pchampin> q+
15:11:00 <laurens> hadrian: pchampin you suggested to already add an empty document for the WG note on use cases. I support this suggestion but might need some help.
15:11:21 <laurens> hadrian: With respect to the use cases, there are a lot of commonalities
15:11:38 <laurens> hadrian: They mostly reflect one angle: what the user will do with the protocol.
15:11:59 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/11/25-lws-minutes.html TallTed
15:12:05 <laurens> hadrian: The cases don't really reflect operational properties, e.g. I would like to discover providers, ...
15:12:17 <laurens> hadrian: They might be user stories, but I have struggled with how we can approach this
15:12:34 <laurens> hadrian: I was looking at how we can distill requirements from use cases
15:12:46 <laurens> hadrian: It is not clear how we can distill requirements at this point
15:13:06 <laurens> hadrian: Any questions?
15:13:11 <pchampin> q?
15:13:29 <laurens> ericP: Do you have the latitude you need to edit this document efficiently
15:13:36 <laurens> hadrian: Do not feel any blockers right now.
15:13:54 <laurens> hadrian: I don't think we need five days like TallTed suggested for reviews of use cases
15:13:58 <TallTed> q+
15:14:06 <pchampin> q-
15:14:07 <timbl_> q+
15:14:18 <laurens> ericP: We need to move quickly, and don't want to hamper people on unnecessary process
15:14:46 <laurens> q?
15:14:47 <ericP> q?
15:14:53 <laurens> ack TallTed
15:14:56 <ericP> ack next
15:15:18 <laurens> TallTed: The reason I asked for this five days is that creating a PR is a heavier lift than putting in some change requests on an existing PR
15:15:34 <laurens> TallTed: This gets heavier as more corrections need to be made, requires a lot more thought
15:15:57 <laurens> TallTed: The gist is not that the document is not touchable, but just that requesting changes on PR is simpler
15:16:08 <timbl_> q+ to say that in fact there had been an architectural rule that ID and the rest of solid should be very flexibly connected -- but is that a use case?
15:16:34 <laurens> timbl_: Authenticating should be pluggable, we want new ways of authentication to be usable when they come out
15:16:44 <laurens> timbl_: Is that a use case or constraint?
15:16:50 <ericP> +1 to making that a use case
15:16:57 <laurens> timbl_: It's higher level than a use case
15:17:06 <laurens> timbl_: But architecturally it is important to consider
15:17:22 <ericP> q?
15:17:30 <ericP> ack next
15:17:31 <Zakim> timbl_, you wanted to say that in fact there had been an architectural rule that ID and the rest of solid should be very flexibly connected -- but is that a use case?
15:17:34 <hadrian> hadrian has joined #lws
15:18:00 <laurens> ericP: I was asking if hadrian can be agile enough on this work item
15:18:07 <pchampin> q+
15:18:10 <laurens> ericP: does anyone have any questions for hadrian?
15:18:16 <TallTed> "As (an app user? a Solid server administrator?), I want to be able to change my authentication provider (a/k/a IdP) nearly at-will, i.e., the authentication layer should be loosely coupled"?
15:18:21 <laurens> ack next
15:18:34 <laurens> pchampin: I would be happy to support publishing the document offline
15:18:52 <laurens> ... We need a group decision to publish a first working draft of the use cases document
15:19:08 <laurens> ... once we have this empty skeleton of a document we can vote on publishing it
15:19:21 <ericP> q+ to say that there's only one chance to make a first impression
15:19:22 <laurens> ... The automation requires a different group decision for automatic publication.
15:19:37 <ericP> ack next
15:19:38 <Zakim> ericP, you wanted to say that there's only one chance to make a first impression
15:19:40 <laurens> ... We first need a very first version of this, I will discuss this with hadrian.
15:19:51 <TallTed> (changing authentication layers raises the question of how authorization is handled)
15:20:18 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/11/25-lws-minutes.html TallTed
15:20:24 <laurens> ericP: The idea of publishing an empty document might not give a good first impression. Might be best to have a few initial use cases.
15:20:32 <ericP> q?
15:21:12 <laurens> hadrian: We can choose a few initial use cases from what we have already
15:21:24 <csarven> q+
15:21:26 <laurens> ... will take it offline with pchampin
15:21:30 <ericP> ack next
15:21:51 <laurens> csarven: Are we going to have an editor's draft of this document (the use cases note)
15:22:16 <laurens> ... Unsure what it is called right now, there were some name changes.
15:22:52 <hadrian> q+
15:22:57 <laurens> ericP: In the old days you would have an editor's draft
15:23:15 <laurens> ericP: And at some interval you would have the WG review the document and cut a draft
15:23:27 <laurens> ericP: After review that would be published under /TR
15:23:54 <laurens> ericP: The world has become more dynamic, so nowadays you can have no delta between editor's draft and latest working draft on W3C TR site
15:23:58 <csarven> s/name changes./name changes. "Draft Notes" I think ( https://www.w3.org/policies/process/#draft-note )
15:24:13 <laurens> ... Another option is that we let the editor work for a while
15:24:20 <csarven> s/Draft Notes/Draft Note
15:24:47 <laurens> ... and then at some point we cut this draft. And then publish intentional drafts after some review period.
15:25:08 <laurens> ... What we have to think about is how we want to operate until we have a working draft. And what we want to do after that
15:25:19 <laurens> ... We are not stuck with our choice afterwards.
15:25:43 <laurens> ... Hadrian will make PRs. The git tooling will display the HTML diff of that, so the rendering as well as the code.
15:26:09 <laurens> ... And then we will have five days to make editorial changes and things like that
15:26:21 <TallTed> -> https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/pronunciation/english/echidna  echidna pronunciation
15:26:39 <laurens> ... Are we using bikeshed or respec?
15:26:59 <ericP> q?
15:27:02 <laurens> hadrian: I do not have a preference
15:27:08 <laurens> ericP: I would use respec
15:27:20 <laurens> ericP: We would use respec
15:27:27 <pchampin> publication rules (testing service and link to doc): https://www.w3.org/pubrules/
15:27:29 <bumblefudge> as one casual observer/very-occasional-contributor, i also have a mild preference for ReSpec (devil I already know)
15:27:33 <laurens> ericP: Hadrian will do PR's
15:27:38 <jacoscaz> q+ to ask about the process of reviewing / evaluating / accepting / rejecting use cases and how it relates to the draft we're discussing
15:28:04 <laurens> ericP: when we decide to make a first public working draft we will have a week of review period
15:28:06 <csarven> q+ re Draft Note / Group Note Draft / DNOTE
15:28:27 <laurens> ... it is also W3C process, so you can find it over there as well.
15:28:43 <laurens> ... We should work with hadrian to navigate this process.
15:28:58 <TallTed> s/ericP: We would use respec//
15:28:59 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/11/25-lws-minutes.html TallTed
15:29:12 <laurens> hadrian: With respect to publishing we could use tags to indicate the published versions
15:29:12 <ericP> q?
15:29:21 <laurens> hadrian: I think that helps to tweak the process
15:29:26 <ericP> ack next
15:29:44 <ericP> ack next
15:29:45 <Zakim> jacoscaz, you wanted to ask about the process of reviewing / evaluating / accepting / rejecting use cases and how it relates to the draft we're discussing
15:30:11 <laurens> jacoscaz: Apologies if I missed this, what's the relation between the draft document and the overall process of evaluating use cases?
15:30:30 <laurens> ericP: Right now we are not committing to use cases
15:30:57 <laurens> ericP: The process by which we will accept use cases will have to evolve, for example some indication of "acceptance"
15:31:07 <laurens> ... I would not want to prevent writing use cases
15:31:23 <hadrian> q+
15:31:23 <laurens> ... on speculation of what we want as requirements of the specification.
15:31:35 <hadrian> q-
15:31:53 <laurens> jacoscaz: I was wondering if this is just the process of submitting use cases and then accepting them later on
15:32:11 <laurens> ericP: I would publish a lot of use cases, with indication these have or have not yet been accepted
15:32:23 <laurens> jacoscaz: Sounds good
15:32:31 <TallTed> q?
15:32:50 <laurens> hadrian: Very quickly, we are going to build the spec off of requirements
15:33:14 <laurens> ... By building list of requirements we will decide if use case is accepted, and covers the use case
15:33:23 <ericP> ack next
15:33:24 <Zakim> csarven, you wanted to discuss Draft Note / Group Note Draft / DNOTE
15:33:32 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/11/25-lws-minutes.html TallTed
15:33:52 <laurens> csarven: I want to clarify a few things on the type of document that we intend to publish
15:33:59 <csarven> The UC document falls under the Note Track: https://www.w3.org/policies/process/#note-track per Process.
15:34:07 <laurens> ... per charter this use case document falls under the note track per the W3C process
15:34:16 <csarven> e.g., https://www.w3.org/pubrules/doc/rules/?profile=DNOTE
15:34:20 <laurens> ... so this should be either a Note or Draft Note as the document that can be published
15:34:32 <laurens> ... there's no such thing as a FPWD
15:34:46 <laurens> ... like what you would have in e.g. a recommendation track.
15:35:27 <laurens> ... There's a possibility that we could treat an editor's draft of this, as a scratch pad of what may be published later.
15:35:52 <laurens> ... Editors could start from an ED which does not have expectations from the WG or W3C community
15:36:54 <laurens> ... Recommendation track has things like IPR and more expectations from W3C community
15:37:10 <pchampin> q?
15:37:18 <laurens> ericP: pchampin is there anything process related we should respect?
15:37:27 <laurens> pchampin: FPWD does not apply here
15:38:00 <laurens> ... Eric was describing the old style process, via the TR which is automated and synchronized with merges on main branch
15:38:13 <TallTed> q+ to suggest a review of *current* W3C process by chairs & editors, assisted/facilitated by staff contact
15:38:43 <laurens> ... Whether we want this tight integration with what is published on TR and main branch should be decided.
15:38:54 <laurens> ... The use case document is meant to be on the note track
15:38:57 <ericP> ack next
15:38:58 <Zakim> TallTed, you wanted to suggest a review of *current* W3C process by chairs & editors, assisted/facilitated by staff contact
15:39:27 <laurens> TallTed: I would suggest a separate session between chairs and staff contact, as well as the current editors.
15:39:31 <bumblefudge> +1
15:39:38 <laurens> ... not all of us need to go into detail on this.
15:39:46 <pchampin> q+
15:39:48 <bumblefudge> q+
15:40:22 <laurens> bumblefudge: I agree that the whole WG meetings should be used for contents of the use cases.
15:40:56 <laurens> ... Even if there wasn't much ready for review, even informal review of some issues on github might be useful.
15:41:02 <bumblefudge> q-
15:41:38 <ericP> ack next
15:42:03 <laurens> pchampin: Could we go back to the introductions and announcements. Because I have a small announcement.
15:42:32 <TallTed> Zakim, reopen item 1
15:42:32 <Zakim> I don't understand 'reopen item 1', TallTed
15:43:24 <ericP> agenda?
15:43:33 <laurens> open agendum 1
15:43:47 <laurens> topic: Introductions and announcements
15:43:53 <bendm> bendm has joined #lws
15:44:01 <pchampin> https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/153/
15:44:17 <laurens> pchampin: I just wanted to inform you that I created a github project as a dashboard for the WG at https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/153/
15:44:27 <laurens> pchampin: This is to centralize issues and PR's
15:44:34 <TallTed> q+
15:44:36 <laurens> ... allows us to sort and slice this in different ways
15:44:50 <laurens> ... I created a few views, but we can fine tune these
15:45:17 <laurens> ... I manually added the PR's that already existed.
15:45:24 <laurens> ack TallTed
15:45:52 <laurens> TallTed: It is not useful for bringing attention to what needs to be prioritized
15:46:02 <laurens> ... has been a feature request with Github for five years.
15:46:19 <ericP> ack next
15:46:35 <ericP> next agendum
15:46:43 <laurens> open agendum 2
15:46:54 <laurens> topic: Default minutes approval
15:47:17 <ericP> next agendum
15:47:18 <laurens> ericP: To remind you that at the next meeting the minutes of the previous meeting are automatically approved (after 1 week)
15:47:31 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/11/25-lws-minutes.html TallTed
15:47:41 <ericP> next agendum
15:47:51 <laurens> open agendum 3
15:47:55 <ericP> take up agendum 3
15:48:11 <pchampin> https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/153/
15:48:12 <laurens> topic: Pending Action Items -- taken up
15:49:03 <ericP> scribe+
15:49:12 <jacoscaz> q+ to mention questions on Gitter
15:49:20 <pchampin> https://www.w3.org/groups/wg/lws/
15:49:32 <ericP> laurens: i saw announcements go past. i think we just have one open action on pchampin
15:50:04 <ericP> pchampin: there is a link from the summary to the repo and the protocol repo
15:50:38 <ericP> ... we might want to point to the editor's draft
15:50:42 <csarven> q+ to comment on tooling used to publish conforming W3C document has to do with pubrules
15:50:53 <ericP> scribe-
15:50:55 <laurens> scribe+
15:50:56 <ericP> ack next
15:50:57 <Zakim> jacoscaz, you wanted to mention questions on Gitter
15:51:15 <laurens> jacoscaz: Just to mention that as I was reaching out on Gitter, some people reached out in private
15:51:28 <laurens> ... as to the relation between CG, WG and ODI.
15:51:37 <laurens> ... I didn't have an answer myself.
15:52:10 <laurens> ... We don't need to address this today, but could discuss this next week.
15:52:22 <laurens> ... Do we know how these entities are going to cooperate?
15:52:43 <laurens> jeswr: At present, ODI is not a member of the LWS WG nor a W3C member. So no official relationship.
15:52:52 <laurens> ... I am here in my Oxford capacity.
15:53:12 <laurens> ... ODI currently supports the community resources, e.g. solidcommunity.net, Github organization for Solid, ...
15:53:44 <laurens> ... There is no official relationship between ODI and the Solid CG. This will probably be administrative support and in development of client-client specifications.
15:54:00 <laurens> ... The governance structure for interacting with the community is still being established.
15:54:10 <laurens> ... ODI is a support structure and facilitator for the community.
15:54:19 <laurens> ... Might be good to discuss this in another WG meeting.
15:55:06 <laurens> ericP: As a request for next week, can everyone look at their holiday plans and have that in mind by next week.
15:55:23 <pchampin> q?
15:55:46 <laurens> csarven: Minor remark on the tooling to write the spec and publishing
15:56:03 <laurens> ... the W3C does not require a specific tool, as long as it conforms to the rules
15:56:25 <laurens> ... You can use any tool, respec and bikeshed are quite popular. But there are other tools.
15:56:39 <laurens> ... It often comes down to editor's preferences. I suggest we leave it at that.
15:56:52 <laurens> ericP: Let's close for today.
15:57:08 <pchampin> RRSAgent, make minutes
15:57:09 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/11/25-lws-minutes.html pchampin
15:58:19 <pchampin> present+ bumblefudge
15:58:20 <pchampin> RRSAgent, make minutes
15:58:21 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/11/25-lws-minutes.html pchampin