15:01:42 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #lws
15:01:46 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2025/01/06-lws-irc
15:01:51 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #lws
15:01:56 <laurens> laurens has joined #lws
15:02:00 <laurens> present+
15:02:05 <acoburn> zakim, start meeting
15:02:05 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
15:02:06 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), acoburn
15:02:10 <acoburn> meeting: Linked Web Storage
15:02:22 <acoburn> chair: laurens
15:02:26 <eBremer> present+
15:02:47 <hadrian> hadrian has joined #lws
15:02:52 <acoburn> present+
15:02:54 <uvdsl> present+
15:02:59 <hadrian> present+
15:03:46 <csarven> present+
15:03:52 <dmitriz> dmitriz has joined #lws
15:04:51 <ryey> ryey has joined #lws
15:05:20 <jeswr> jeswr has joined #lws
15:05:37 <jeswr> present+
15:05:39 <ryey> present+
15:05:42 <acoburn> scribe: jeswr
15:05:57 <acoburn> RRSAgent, make minutes
15:05:58 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/01/06-lws-minutes.html acoburn
15:07:36 <AZ> AZ has joined #lws
15:07:38 <pchampin> present+
15:07:38 <laurens> agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/a19ab7dc-1753-433d-bac5-64e3ad8c0a43/20250106T100000/
15:07:39 <AZ> present+
15:07:40 <agendabot> clear agenda
15:07:40 <agendabot> agenda+ Establish categories for use cases
15:07:40 <agendabot> agenda+ Applying labels on GH issues
15:07:40 <agendabot> agenda+ "Needs Discussion" label
15:07:40 <agendabot> agenda+ Work through example use cases as a group
15:08:42 <bendm> bendm has joined #lws
15:08:52 <TallTed> TallTed has joined #lws
15:09:03 <jeswr> laurens: 4 topics, first is establishing categories for use cases
15:09:19 <jeswr> ...: propose doing this with GH labels
15:09:47 <jeswr> ...: currently have some topics labelled as needs discussion, need to work out how to schedule meetings with relevant people
15:10:01 <bendm> q+
15:10:12 <laurens> ack bendm
15:10:31 <jeswr> bendm: How do we link to requirements from use cases
15:11:11 <jeswr> laurens: We will identify high level categories from use cases. Requirements will then come from the categories.
15:11:44 <jeswr> ...: This is as discussed by the chairs, but process can be updated based on feedback from other WG members
15:11:46 <TallTed> present+
15:12:00 <bendm> present+
15:12:26 <jeswr> laurens: The ultimate goal is to distill requirements
15:12:38 <laurens> next agendum
15:12:48 <TallTed> TallTed has changed the topic to: Linked Web Storage WG -- 2025-01-06 agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/a19ab7dc-1753-433d-bac5-64e3ad8c0a43/20250106T100000/
15:12:55 <jeswr> laurens: Brings us to agent item establishing categories from use cases
15:13:27 <jeswr> ...: There are 2 aims, identifying categories from use cases and getting a set of requirements from each category.
15:13:29 <laurens> laurens: Possible categories include
15:13:29 <laurens> Authentication
15:13:29 <laurens> Authorization
15:13:29 <laurens> Notifications
15:13:30 <laurens> Data Management
15:13:30 <laurens> Data Discovery
15:13:37 <hadrian> q+
15:13:44 <acoburn> ->  https://github.com/w3c/lws-ucs Use cases repo
15:13:57 <jeswr> laurens: This is just an initial set of categories.
15:14:08 <jeswr> ...: Data discovery is about interfaces for reads and writes
15:14:19 <laurens> ack hadrian
15:14:20 <jeswr> ...: some use cases also touch upon different types of interfaces such as streaming data
15:14:31 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/01/06-lws-minutes.html TallTed
15:14:38 <jeswr> hadrian: We have a good critical mass of use cases now
15:14:49 <jeswr> ...: Quite a few are duplicates already
15:15:04 <jeswr> ...: I like the labels proposal but have questions.
15:15:10 <laurens> s/Data discovery is about interfaces/Data Management is about interfaces/
15:15:30 <jeswr> ...: The README defines 3-4 categories, e.g. functional, non-functional. The ones proposed are mostly non-functional
15:15:45 <jeswr> ...: but some are also related to infrastructure tasks
15:16:17 <jeswr> ...: Do we want to use categories and sub-categories here to put the categories like laurens has into the categories of the readme
15:16:39 <laurens> q?
15:16:41 <laurens> q+
15:16:45 <csarven> q+ To mention 1) Consider adding "Protocol" as a category 2) Introduce "Status" as a label, e.g., https://github.com/solid/specification/labels?q=status
15:16:50 <jeswr> ...: I understand we want to go to requirements as the end goal. But do we want to come up with an interim stage of defining use cases and user-stories and then put those into requirements
15:16:57 <laurens> ack laurens
15:17:00 <jeswr> ...: and how do we close issues that have been triaged
15:17:15 <jeswr> laurens: The listed categories in the README are useful but too high level
15:17:34 <hadrian> q+
15:17:38 <jeswr> ...: we either need to refine them
15:17:45 <TallTed> previous meeting: https://www.w3.org/2024/12/16-lws-minutes.html
15:17:45 <TallTed> next meeting: https://www.w3.org/2025/01/13-lws-minutes.html
15:17:46 <jeswr> ...: some are also overlapping
15:18:07 <jeswr> ...: and we need to identify what areas of use cases you can get from user stories
15:18:12 <acoburn> q?
15:18:18 <laurens> ack csarven
15:18:18 <Zakim> csarven, you wanted to mention 1) Consider adding "Protocol" as a category 2) Introduce "Status" as a label, e.g., https://github.com/solid/specification/labels?q=status
15:18:52 <jeswr> csarven: One label you want to add is protocol, which won't fit into the categories listed
15:19:19 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/01/06-lws-minutes.html TallTed
15:19:31 <jeswr> ...: This would be primarily HTTP stuff that does the primary read/write stuff of the server
15:20:29 <jeswr> ...: The other point. The Solid CG specification has a status label https://github.com/solid/specification/labels?q=status - and has also been used in other WGs like Social Web. Others include "timeout", "not satisfied" etc.
15:20:57 <jeswr> ...: such labels help decide e.g. if we have waited long enough to close an issue if a commentor has not responded in a sufficient period
15:21:30 <jeswr> ...: Other status' would include "needs process help" to pull in pierre-antione for input
15:21:34 <laurens> q,
15:21:36 <laurens> q?
15:21:41 <laurens> ack hadrian
15:21:43 <laurens> q+
15:22:08 <bendm> +1 on using status
15:22:09 <jeswr> hadrian: status is a good way to decide when to close issues. I wonder if we can make a decision on doing this today
15:22:27 <jeswr> ...: The current categories we have in the README address only one dimension which is target audience
15:22:39 <jeswr> ...: some will be app developers, other will be server maintainers etc.
15:22:59 <laurens> q?
15:23:00 <jeswr> ...: Everything we discuss and decide around categories here today will also be reflected in the readme
15:23:04 <bendm> q+
15:23:06 <jeswr> laurens: I like the status proposal
15:23:08 <laurens> ack laurens
15:23:19 <pchampin> RRSAgent, make minutes
15:23:20 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/01/06-lws-minutes.html pchampin
15:23:29 <laurens> ack bendm
15:23:57 <jeswr> bendm: I  am confused about target audience. I thought categories were about technical requirements which servers and clients implement
15:24:12 <pchampin> q++
15:24:25 <pchampin> q+
15:24:27 <pchampin> q-+
15:25:28 <jeswr> hadrian: The target audience is important. Consider portability, if the target audience is the user, and the requirement is to take data from one provider to another that works. However for this to happen - there is a need for the providers in the background to have a protocol for sending data from one provider to another provider.
15:25:53 <jeswr> ...: Consider what banks do, some parts of the protocol don't involve the people that write cheques - some data is just sent directly between banks
15:26:21 <jeswr> bendm: I would then expect that the use case would be data management and the requirement would be data portability protocol
15:26:46 <laurens> q?
15:26:49 <laurens> ack pchampin
15:27:23 <csarven> q+ broadly re labels: approach from the point of the kind of data we want to track
15:27:31 <laurens> q?
15:27:37 <pchampin> s/...:/.../g
15:27:37 <jeswr> jeswr has joined #lws
15:27:41 <pchampin> RRSAgent, make minutes
15:27:42 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/01/06-lws-minutes.html pchampin
15:28:13 <csarven> My password: *********
15:28:50 <jeswr> csarven: I like this topic, but I think it is just about labels and what data we want to track about use-cases. Target audience is interesting if you want to keep track of that
15:29:36 <jeswr> ... if the group thinks here is a portion of use cases for authors and here is a portion of use cases for implementors and wants to make it easy to look up by those categories
15:29:46 <laurens> q?
15:29:48 <laurens> ack broadly
15:29:48 <Zakim> broadly, you wanted to discuss labels: approach from the point of the kind of data we want to track
15:30:06 <jeswr> ... we also want to consider the priority of constituencies which is defined as the design priorities by the W3C.
15:30:17 <laurens> q+
15:30:36 <jeswr> ... ie is a use-case largely defined for the benefit of users, spec editors, implementors etc
15:31:00 <jeswr> ... now is a good time to mark that, because in the future it will be forgotten
15:31:16 <pchampin> i|laurens: Brings us to agent item|Topic: Establish categories for use cases
15:32:40 <jeswr> ... we should identify who the use-case is helping
15:32:56 <jeswr> ... and we should track information such as whether the proposer is planning to implement the use case
15:33:08 <jeswr> ... or are they sharing it on behalf of someone else
15:33:27 <jeswr> ... at some point we need to decide which use-cases we are not going to finish within the lifetime of this particular charter
15:33:38 <jeswr> ... some of that information can be gleamed by labelling these
15:33:57 <jeswr> laurens: The goal from my side is to enable use as a working group to produce a future spec
15:34:26 <jeswr> ... we are asking other people submit use cases which we won't necessarily pick up, so we can't ask make submitters of those use cases to implement it either
15:35:01 <jeswr> ... though it might be useful to ask those submitting use cases to indicate whether they are implementing this feature, or need the feature for the use case they are working on
15:35:32 <laurens> q?
15:35:36 <laurens> ack laurens
15:36:04 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/01/06-lws-minutes.html TallTed
15:36:13 <laurens> RESOLUTION: We will track the status of issues in lws-ucs repo with labels cfr. https://github.com/solid/specification/labels?q=status
15:36:18 <laurens> +1
15:36:23 <ericP> ericP has joined #lws
15:36:26 <jeswr> +1
15:36:29 <acoburn> +1
15:36:32 <ericP> present+
15:36:41 <csarven> s/design priorities by the W3C/W3C Web Platform Design Principles
15:36:42 <AZ> +1
15:36:42 <bendm> +1
15:36:45 <TallTed> s/RESOLUTION:/PROPOSAL:/
15:36:46 <uvdsl> +1
15:36:46 <ericP> +1
15:36:50 <hadrian> +1
15:36:52 <eBremer> +1
15:36:54 <pchampin> +1
15:36:55 <TallTed> +1
15:37:03 <bendm> q+
15:37:23 <hadrian> q+
15:37:38 <laurens> ACTION: hadrian to apply statusses as labels to the lws-ucs repo
15:37:46 <gb> Created -> action #10 https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/issues/10
15:37:57 <jeswr> bendm: For the categorisation is that a next point?
15:38:15 <TallTed> RESOLVED: We will track the status of issues in lws-ucs repo with labels cfr. https://github.com/solid/specification/labels?q=status
15:38:27 <jeswr> laurens: I would be interested to hear another concrete proposal of which categories we should take up - or further distill some subcategories from the readme
15:38:33 <laurens> q?
15:38:35 <laurens> ack bendm
15:38:38 <laurens> ack hadrian
15:38:47 <TallTed> (usually chair prerogative, but to keep it near the votes)
15:38:55 <jeswr> hadrian: Yes my proposal is to open an issue in which to discuss the categories async for approx. 1 week
15:39:06 <jeswr> ... then will create a PR
15:40:08 <laurens> q+
15:40:09 <jeswr> ... From an editorial perspective I have question. Should we point from the spec to all the use cases in the git repo - I don't know how this fits in the W3C culture
15:41:07 <jeswr> laurens: Use cases document will be an output of this group, needs to live outside the GH repo afterwards and thus be a self contained document and reference from the spec
15:41:24 <ericP> q+ to address W3C culture around UC&R docs
15:41:27 <jeswr> ... I don't know if the back referencing from the use-cases working group to the spec is something we want to pick up
15:41:45 <pchampin> q+
15:41:52 <laurens> ack laurens
15:42:05 <jeswr> ... I see it as an equal output to the protocol doc, but protocol doc will probably become our primary focus in a few weeks time
15:42:27 <laurens> PROPOSAL: Do we open an issue on categories categories in the lws-ucs repo, and discuss async for 1 week?
15:42:34 <laurens> +1
15:42:35 <jeswr> +1
15:42:38 <acoburn> +1
15:42:38 <ericP> +1
15:42:39 <hadrian> +1
15:42:49 <pchampin> +1
15:42:56 <AZ> +1
15:43:02 <ryey> +1
15:43:03 <TallTed> +1
15:43:04 <bendm> +a
15:43:06 <bendm> +1
15:43:10 <eBremer> +1
15:43:56 <laurens> RESOLVED: Do we open an issue on categories categories in the lws-ucs repo, and discuss async for 1 week?
15:44:21 <pchampin> s/RESOLVED: Do we open an issue on categories categories in the lws-ucs repo, and discuss async for 1 week?/RESOLVED: open an issue on categories categories in the lws-ucs repo, and discuss async for 1 week
15:44:44 <laurens> ACTION: laurens to open issue in lws-ucs repo on categorization
15:37:46 <gb> Created -> action #9 https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/issues/9
15:44:59 <laurens> q?
15:45:05 <laurens> ack ericP
15:45:05 <Zakim> ericP, you wanted to address W3C culture around UC&R docs
15:45:29 <jeswr> ericP: Historically, UC&R docs guide WG in their decisions and are not vanity pieces
15:45:32 <csarven> s/use cases for authors/use cases including different actors or roles, e.g., authors
15:45:48 <jeswr> ... if we had use cases that were redundant we would remove them
15:45:52 <TallTed> Use Cases expose Requirements which are then addressed by the Specification
15:46:07 <jeswr> ... where possible we would use a single story and derive different use-cases / theses from that story
15:46:23 <jeswr> ... I also think it is reasonable to point at the issues so people can track them back
15:46:27 <jeswr> ... but not required
15:46:30 <laurens> q?
15:46:35 <laurens> ack pchampin
15:46:42 <csarven> s/categories categories/categories
15:47:20 <jeswr> laurens: Hadrians question was can we just point to the issue rather than re-phrasing them in the note.
15:47:20 <laurens> q+
15:47:51 <jeswr> s/laurens:/pchampin
15:48:02 <csarven> q+ re UC Note editorial and alignment with Issues
15:48:05 <ericP> +1 to including the user story in the UC&R doc
15:48:07 <laurens> q?
15:48:08 <bendm> q+
15:48:09 <hadrian> q+
15:48:10 <laurens> ack laurens
15:48:25 <jeswr> pchampion: also note that the working group note is not normative so not with same stand as the specification document
15:48:31 <laurens> q?
15:48:34 <laurens> ack csarven
15:48:34 <Zakim> csarven, you wanted to discuss UC Note editorial and alignment with Issues
15:48:42 <jeswr> s/pchampion/pchampin
15:49:41 <bendm> q-
15:50:06 <jeswr> csarven: Yes you can point back to the note so you can cite back to it. But agree with pchampin that we should not just use the issues because different people write the issues up in different ways - having them re-written will create consistency and make them easier to read
15:50:29 <laurens> q?
15:50:53 <laurens> q?
15:50:55 <jeswr> ... Many of us are proposing different use cases - I assume we are aligned within our own proposals but they are not aligned across proposals
15:50:57 <laurens> ack hadrian
15:51:32 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/01/06-lws-minutes.html TallTed
15:51:53 <jeswr> hadrian: I think we all agree that requirements must be in the final note. Do we want to have user stories or use cases in the UC&R document?
15:52:13 <laurens> q+
15:52:15 <jeswr> ... my preference would be to have user stories in the note, and point to use cases in the GH repo that informed them
15:52:42 <jeswr> ... alternatively, we could create a final user story that would be the basis for pointing out the duplicates and having a consistent style
15:53:23 <laurens> ack laurens
15:53:24 <jeswr> s/user stories in the note, and point to use cases in the GH repo/use cases in the note, and point to user stories in the GH repo
15:54:04 <jeswr> laurens: This is a useful discussion, we need to discuss whether we want to have user stories in the full-blown way we have received them. It is going to be very difficult to make consistent
15:54:29 <laurens> topic: "Needs Discussion" label
15:54:30 <TallTed> s/statusses/statuses/g
15:54:34 <jeswr> ... We still have a couple of issues labelled as "Needs Discussion"
15:54:45 <jeswr> ... How should we proceed with these
15:55:02 <jeswr> ... is it an action on Hadrians side to ask those people to join the WG meeting
15:55:15 <csarven> q+ What UC doesn't "need a discussion"?
15:55:27 <jeswr> hadrian: I don't know, but I know identity is what we need to discuss
15:55:33 <jeswr> q+
15:55:39 <csarven> q+
15:55:53 <laurens> q?
15:55:54 <jeswr> laurens: I think this should be defined by categorisation and then plan ahead in the agenda to bring people in
15:56:15 <jeswr> hadrian: I can prioritise the labels part, should we prioritise those needing discussion in the next meetings?
15:56:32 <laurens> q?
15:56:36 <laurens> ack jeswr
15:56:37 <jeswr> laurens: No, we should go by category in a particular meeting so we can bring people in with warning
15:57:43 <jeswr> hadrian: By next week should I have categorised the needs discussion points
15:57:49 <jeswr> laurens: yes
15:58:18 <laurens> action: hadrian to add categorization to the needs discussion labeled issues
15:58:18 <gb> Created -> action #11 https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/issues/11
15:58:28 <jeswr> csarven: It is unclear why some are "needs discussion", shouldn't they all be
15:58:46 <jeswr> hadrian: some we may reach lazy consensus in the issue and not need time in the meeting
15:59:00 <jeswr> ... needs discussion is where they have diverging view and need discussion in the meeting
15:59:36 <pchampin> RRSAgent, make minutes
15:59:37 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/01/06-lws-minutes.html pchampin
15:59:51 <acoburn> acoburn has left #lws
16:00:16 <hadrian> hadrian has left #lws
16:03:35 <pchampin> RRSAgent, make minutes
16:03:36 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/01/06-lws-minutes.html pchampin
<pchampin> s/agent item/agenda item