14:43:14 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #lws
14:43:18 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2025/02/17-lws-irc
14:43:18 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
14:43:19 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), laurens
14:44:58 <laurens> meeting: LWS WG meeting (2025-02-17)
14:46:07 <laurens> agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/a19ab7dc-1753-433d-bac5-64e3ad8c0a43/20250217T100000/
14:46:07 <agendabot> clear agenda
14:46:07 <agendabot> agenda+ Introductions & Announcements
14:46:07 <agendabot> agenda+ Action items
14:46:07 <agendabot> agenda+ Template for requirements (https://github.com/w3c/lws-ucs/pull/119)
14:46:07 <agendabot> agenda+ Consensus on glossary (https://github.com/w3c/lws-ucs/issues/122)
14:46:10 <agendabot> agenda+ Potential blocking items, progress & timeline for UCR document
15:01:57 <laurens> laurens has joined #lws
15:01:59 <eBremer> eBremer has joined #lws
15:02:03 <laurens> present+
15:02:18 <eBremer> present+
15:03:38 <csarven> present+
15:04:59 <ryey> ryey has joined #lws
15:05:08 <bendm> bendm has joined #lws
15:05:11 <pchampin> present+
15:05:13 <pchampin> scribe+
15:05:13 <ryey> present+
15:05:16 <bendm> present+
15:05:35 <laurens> chair: laurens
15:05:45 <laurens> scribe: pchampin
15:06:02 <dmitriz> dmitriz has joined #lws
15:06:16 <AZ> AZ has joined #lws
15:06:20 <AZ> Z> present+
15:06:27 <AZ> present+
15:06:29 <pchampin> zakim, open item 1
15:06:29 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Introductions & Announcements -- taken up [from agendabot]
15:06:35 <AZ> s/Z> present+//
15:07:11 <pchampin> laurens: reminder: please try to keep under two minutes when you have the floot. This applies to anyone, including the chairs.
15:07:28 <pchampin> ... Any other announcement?
15:07:39 <pchampin> ... Hearing none, let's move on.
15:07:42 <pchampin> zakim, next item
15:07:42 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Action items -- taken up [from agendabot]
15:07:56 <pchampin> laurens: I see two open actions.
15:08:32 <pchampin> ... Should we keep "sticky" action items open? I'd rather not.
15:08:53 <pchampin> ... We should have a different way to capture recurring topics.
15:09:00 <pchampin> ... Any suggestion?
15:09:08 <pchampin> present+ ericP
15:09:23 <jeswr> jeswr has joined #lws
15:09:31 <pchampin> ericP: should be on a case-per-case basis. Some people would prefer being pinged regularly.
15:09:42 <pchampin> ... If not, we can close those actions.
15:09:55 <pchampin> laurens: I'll ask Hadrian how he prefers to deal this those.
15:10:09 <pchampin> ... It is not clear what the definition of "done" is for those actions.
15:10:53 <pchampin> zakim, open next item
15:10:53 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- Template for requirements (https://github.com/w3c/lws-ucs/pull/119) -- taken up [from agendabot]
15:11:08 <pchampin> laurens: There has been some discussions on this PR already.
15:11:41 <pchampin> ... csarven, you made some comments. Do you want to develop?
15:12:03 <pchampin> csarven: I don't have anything to add. pchampin's suggestions on the PR are good.
15:12:20 <pchampin> ... They are pending response by Hadrian. Review from others would be good.
15:12:44 <pchampin> laurens: agreed; everyone is encouraged to give feedback on this PR.
15:13:10 <pchampin> zakim, open next item
15:13:10 <Zakim> agendum 4 -- Consensus on glossary (https://github.com/w3c/lws-ucs/issues/122) -- taken up [from agendabot]
15:13:49 <pchampin> laurens: there was also some discussion in this issue. We did discuss it last week.
15:14:10 <pchampin> ... I would like to discuss further the choice between "owner" and "controller".
15:14:33 <pchampin> ... Hadrian made a point about "controller", which GDPR uses differently.
15:14:51 <pchampin> dmitriz: great point, we could call it out explicitly ("we use this term differently from GDPR").
15:15:21 <pchampin> ... The thing we call "owner" in Solid is the person/entity allowed to make changes to the resource and its metadata, hence "controller".
15:15:59 <pchampin> ... The same discussion occurred in the Verifiable Credentials / Decentralized Identifiers group, where they first had "owner", the decided to rename it to "controller".
15:16:07 <pchampin> q+ csarven
15:16:10 <ericP> ericP has joined #lws
15:16:15 <ericP> present+
15:16:18 <laurens> q?
15:16:27 <laurens> ack csarven
15:16:44 <pchampin> laurens: +1 to make it explicit that we do not use it the same way as GDPR.
15:17:03 <laurens> q+
15:17:20 <pchampin> csarven: in the use cases, some aspects are more related to "owner", others more to "controller".
15:17:27 <pchampin> ... I agree with what dmitriz said.
15:17:55 <ericP> q+ to ask if the controler is different from the person who has legal/adminstrative ownership and whether that matters in these use cases
15:17:56 <laurens> ack laurens
15:18:16 <pchampin> ... There is an interaction between owner and controller. There is a question of liability.
15:18:16 <jucanbe> jucanbe has joined #lws
15:18:37 <pchampin> laurens: Do you consider liability as the separation line between owner and controller?
15:18:39 <pchampin> q?
15:18:44 <dmitriz> I don't think any of our usecases use the ownwer notion tho..
15:19:14 <pchampin> csarven: yes, that's a way. In WebArch, the term owner is used for "URI owner".
15:19:32 <pchampin> ... There is no direct mapping to something like a controller.
15:19:33 <pchampin> q+
15:19:52 <ericP> dmitriz, i'll report that when i get called upon
15:19:52 <pchampin> ... We should be clear in the spec that "owner" may not be the same as "URI owner".
15:20:16 <laurens> ack ericP
15:20:16 <Zakim> ericP, you wanted to ask if the controler is different from the person who has legal/adminstrative ownership and whether that matters in these use cases
15:20:19 <pchampin> ... I support dmitriz's suggestion, but not to the point of dropping the term "owner" completely.
15:20:38 <ryey> q+
15:20:40 <pchampin> ericP: to ask if the controler is different from the person who has legal/adminstrative ownership and whether that matters in these use cases
15:21:01 <dmitriz> thx
15:21:02 <laurens> q?
15:21:06 <laurens> ack pchampin
15:21:58 <laurens> rrsagent, draft minutes
15:22:00 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/02/17-lws-minutes.html laurens
15:22:31 <laurens> q?
15:22:51 <pchampin> pchampin: what we call an "owner" in webarch is usually a renter. we need to be clear about how we differ from other specs' use of the term
15:22:56 <laurens> ack ryey
15:23:21 <pchampin> ryey: people talk about differen things simultaneously. We need to make a difference between owner, controller and admin.
15:23:52 <pchampin> ... one is the administrator of the storage service.
15:24:16 <pchampin> laurens: I agree that we also need to discuss the notion of administrator.
15:24:27 <pchampin> ... But do we need to consider that?
15:24:41 <laurens> q?
15:25:11 <ericP> q+ to propose we clarfiy our set of terms and offer them to the UC&R editor to include if referenced in the document
15:25:17 <pchampin> laurens: I see some consensus on introducing the term "controller", but not as a full replacement of the term "owner".
15:25:30 <bendm> +1
15:25:44 <laurens> ack ericP
15:25:44 <Zakim> ericP, you wanted to propose we clarfiy our set of terms and offer them to the UC&R editor to include if referenced in the document
15:26:24 <pchampin> ericP: I was goint to propose the same thing. Do we need to define them, or defer to Hadrian for that?
15:27:09 <laurens> PROPOSAL: To introduce both the term owner and controller in the glossary, and clarify their meaning.
15:27:43 <AZ> +0.8
15:27:53 <laurens> +1
15:28:11 <pchampin> ericP: with some caveat about "owner" often being a "renter"
15:28:29 <ericP> +½
15:28:36 <pchampin> laurens: not necessarily a resolution, but let's make an action for Hadrian
15:28:55 <pchampin> +0.8 (not entirely sure that two notions are required, but not opposed to it)
15:30:10 <bendm> +1
15:30:11 <laurens> ACTION: hadrian To introduce both the term owner and controller in the glossary, and clarify their meaning.
15:30:18 <gb> Created -> action #15 https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/issues/15
15:30:18 <csarven> +1 iff the use cases cover it
15:30:46 <pchampin> laurens: any other topic to discuss for the glossary? We touched on the notion of administrator?
15:30:49 <pchampin> q+
15:30:55 <laurens> ack pchampin
15:31:52 <laurens> q?
15:32:12 <pchampin> pchampin: Solid/LWS is not always about self-hosting, so distinguishing administrator from controller is useful.
15:32:19 <pchampin> zakim, open item
15:32:19 <Zakim> I don't understand 'open item', pchampin
15:32:24 <pchampin> zakim, open next item
15:32:24 <Zakim> agendum 5 -- Potential blocking items, progress & timeline for UCR document -- taken up [from agendabot]
15:32:57 <pchampin> laurens: personally, I'd like a fisrt draft of the UC note in the coming weeks.
15:33:09 <pchampin> ... I've discussed that with Hadrian asynchronously.
15:33:22 <pchampin> ... I would also like to start work on the protocol soon.
15:33:49 <pchampin> <pchampin> +1 to this (rough) timeline
15:34:02 <pchampin> laurens: we need the glossary and requirements template in place.
15:34:11 <pchampin> ... Is there anything that is blocking us?
15:34:25 <eBremer> s/fisrt/first
15:35:13 <csarven> q+
15:35:19 <pchampin> ... Anyone wants to add anything about the UC note, or the upcoming Protocol spec?
15:36:02 <pchampin> csarven: will we be discussing the glossary again today?
15:36:03 <laurens> ack csarven
15:36:25 <pchampin> laurens: I'm not sure we can progress much without Hadrian.
15:36:42 <pchampin> csarven: other topic: we will need to demonstrate adequate implementation experience.
15:37:11 <pchampin> ... Should we have a survey on what people are planning to implement?
15:37:22 <pchampin> laurens: +1 about the idea of getting commitment to implement.
15:37:52 <pchampin> ... But I'm not sure how we can approach that. At least we can gauge interest in implementing given use-cases?
15:38:58 <pchampin> ... We can put this discussion on the agenda for next week.
15:39:08 <pchampin> q+
15:39:33 <laurens> ack pchampin
15:39:58 <pchampin> ack
15:41:16 <laurens> topic: Capturing interest in use cases
15:42:06 <pchampin> s/in use cases/in implementation
15:42:44 <pchampin> csarven: we don't need to hash out some classes of use-cases or requirements if no one intends to implement them.
15:42:58 <pchampin> ... At the end of the day, the W3C criteria requires that we have implementation of all features.
15:43:14 <pchampin> q+
15:43:44 <pchampin> ... Discussing interest in implementation beforehand will save us some time.
15:44:03 <laurens> ack pchampin
15:44:05 <pchampin> laurens: +1 on the focus and prioritozation
15:45:16 <pchampin> q?
15:45:19 <pchampin> q+ csarven
15:45:24 <laurens> ack csarven
15:45:30 <csarven> User stories / cases survey, e.g., in Social Web WG https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/Social_API/User_stories , Solid CG: https://github.com/solid/authorization-panel/blob/main/proposals/authorization-ucr/uc-survey.md
15:45:46 <pchampin> pchampin: deciding whether requirements/UC are in- or out of scope should definitely be based on the interest of implementers
15:46:44 <pchampin> csarven: see links above, how the Social Web WG and Solid CG captured the interest of the community
15:47:01 <pchampin> ... It is good insight.
15:47:52 <pchampin> ... It is also part of bookkeeping (compare actual implementations with declared intents).
15:48:28 <pchampin> laurens: good proposal. I would like to discuss it with the editors.
15:49:01 <pchampin> ... Some organization may not want to share on the open what they plan to implement, but for us the transparency is good.
15:49:55 <pchampin> csarven: it is optional. These organization don't have to share. If it is useful for 80%+ of us, that's already good.
15:50:16 <pchampin> ... It should also be clear that those "commitments" are not legally binding :)
15:50:41 <laurens> q?
15:51:18 <pchampin> laurens: I'll ping Hadrian about this discussion. Hopefully he is with us next week to continue the discussion.
15:51:57 <pchampin> Topic: AOB
15:52:46 <jeswr> jeswr has joined #lws
15:53:01 <pchampin> jesse: there has been discussion in the CG, about whether the CG can make changes to the Solid protocol CG report.
15:53:03 <jeswr> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-lws-wg/2025Feb/0000.html
15:53:10 <pchampin> ... I'd like a WG decision to allow the CG to pursue.
15:53:10 <jeswr> https://github.com/solid/specification/pull/711
15:53:11 <gb> https://github.com/solid/specification/pull/711 -> Pull Request 711 change: allow blank nodes to be inserted in N3 Patches (by jeswr) [doc: Protocol]
15:53:36 <pchampin> laurens: unfortunately, we need more that 3 minutes.
15:53:55 <pchampin> ... I will send an email to the mailing list and put this in the agenda for next week.
15:54:04 <laurens> ACTION: to write an e-mail to the mailing list on the WG/CG scope, and whether changes to the CG publications can be made.
15:54:05 <gb> Cannot create action. Validation failed. Maybe to write an e-mail is not a valid user for w3c/lws-protocol?
15:54:28 <laurens> s/ACTION: to write an e-mail to the mailing list on the WG/CG scope, and whether changes to the CG publications can be made./ACTION: laurens to write an e-mail to the mailing list on the WG/CG scope, and whether changes to the CG publications can be made./
15:57:26 <pchampin> RRSAgent, make minutes
15:57:27 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/02/17-lws-minutes.html pchampin
15:58:13 <pchampin> present+ dmitriz
15:58:19 <pchampin> present+ jesse
15:58:20 <pchampin> RRSAgent, make minutes
15:58:22 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/02/17-lws-minutes.html pchampin
15:59:23 <m2gbot> m2gbot has joined #lws
15:59:52 <pchampin> RRSAgent, bye
15:59:52 <RRSAgent> I see 2 open action items saved in https://www.w3.org/2025/02/17-lws-actions.rdf :
15:59:52 <RRSAgent> ACTION: hadrian To introduce both the term owner and controller in the glossary, and clarify their meaning. [1]
15:59:52 <RRSAgent>   recorded in https://www.w3.org/2025/02/17-lws-irc#T15-30-11
15:59:52 <RRSAgent> ACTION: to write an e-mail to the mailing list on the WG/CG scope, and whether changes to the CG publications can be made. [2]
15:59:52 <RRSAgent>   recorded in https://www.w3.org/2025/02/17-lws-irc#T15-54-04