Meeting minutes
Introductions & Announcements
laurens: reminder: please try to keep under two minutes when you have the floot. This applies to anyone, including the chairs.
… Any other announcement?
… Hearing none, let's move on.
Action items
laurens: I see two open actions.
… Should we keep "sticky" action items open? I'd rather not.
… We should have a different way to capture recurring topics.
… Any suggestion?
ericP: should be on a case-per-case basis. Some people would prefer being pinged regularly.
… If not, we can close those actions.
laurens: I'll ask Hadrian how he prefers to deal this those.
… It is not clear what the definition of "done" is for those actions.
Template for requirements (w3c/lws-ucs#119 )
laurens: There has been some discussions on this PR already.
… csarven, you made some comments. Do you want to develop?
csarven: I don't have anything to add. pchampin's suggestions on the PR are good.
… They are pending response by Hadrian. Review from others would be good.
laurens: agreed; everyone is encouraged to give feedback on this PR.
Consensus on glossary (w3c/lws-ucs#122 )
laurens: there was also some discussion in this issue. We did discuss it last week.
… I would like to discuss further the choice between "owner" and "controller".
… Hadrian made a point about "controller", which GDPR uses differently.
dmitriz: great point, we could call it out explicitly ("we use this term differently from GDPR").
… The thing we call "owner" in Solid is the person/entity allowed to make changes to the resource and its metadata, hence "controller".
… The same discussion occurred in the Verifiable Credentials / Decentralized Identifiers group, where they first had "owner", the decided to rename it to "controller".
laurens: +1 to make it explicit that we do not use it the same way as GDPR.
csarven: in the use cases, some aspects are more related to "owner", others more to "controller".
… I agree with what dmitriz said.
… There is an interaction between owner and controller. There is a question of liability.
laurens: Do you consider liability as the separation line between owner and controller?
<dmitriz> I don't think any of our usecases use the ownwer notion tho..
csarven: yes, that's a way. In WebArch, the term owner is used for "URI owner".
… There is no direct mapping to something like a controller.
<ericP> dmitriz, i'll report that when i get called upon
csarven: We should be clear in the spec that "owner" may not be the same as "URI owner".
<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
csarven: I support dmitriz's suggestion, but not to the point of dropping the term "owner" completely.
ericP: to ask if the controler is different from the person who has legal/adminstrative ownership and whether that matters in these use cases
<dmitriz> thx
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
ryey: people talk about differen things simultaneously. We need to make a difference between owner, controller and admin.
… one is the administrator of the storage service.
laurens: I agree that we also need to discuss the notion of administrator.
… But do we need to consider that?
laurens: I see some consensus on introducing the term "controller", but not as a full replacement of the term "owner".
<bendm> +1
<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
ericP: I was goint to propose the same thing. Do we need to define them, or defer to Hadrian for that?
<laurens> PROPOSAL: To introduce both the term owner and controller in the glossary, and clarify their meaning.
<AZ> +0.8
<laurens> +1
ericP: with some caveat about "owner" often being a "renter"
<ericP> +½
laurens: not necessarily a resolution, but let's make an action for Hadrian
<pchampin> +0.8 (not entirely sure that two notions are required, but not opposed to it)
<bendm> +1
ACTION: hadrian To introduce both the term owner and controller in the glossary, and clarify their meaning.
<gb> Created action #15
<csarven> +1 iff the use cases cover it
laurens: any other topic to discuss for the glossary? We touched on the notion of administrator?
pchampin: Solid/LWS is not always about self-hosting, so distinguishing administrator from controller is useful.
Potential blocking items, progress & timeline for UCR document
laurens: personally, I'd like a first draft of the UC note in the coming weeks.
… I've discussed that with Hadrian asynchronously.
… I would also like to start work on the protocol soon.
<pchampin> +1 to this (rough) timeline
laurens: we need the glossary and requirements template in place.
… Is there anything that is blocking us?
… Anyone wants to add anything about the UC note, or the upcoming Protocol spec?
csarven: will we be discussing the glossary again today?
laurens: I'm not sure we can progress much without Hadrian.
csarven: other topic: we will need to demonstrate adequate implementation experience.
… Should we have a survey on what people are planning to implement?
laurens: +1 about the idea of getting commitment to implement.
… But I'm not sure how we can approach that. At least we can gauge interest in implementing given use-cases?
… We can put this discussion on the agenda for next week.
ack
Capturing interest in implementation
csarven: we don't need to hash out some classes of use-cases or requirements if no one intends to implement them.
… At the end of the day, the W3C criteria requires that we have implementation of all features.
… Discussing interest in implementation beforehand will save us some time.
laurens: +1 on the focus and prioritozation
<csarven> User stories / cases survey, e.g., in Social Web WG https://
pchampin: deciding whether requirements/UC are in- or out of scope should definitely be based on the interest of implementers
csarven: see links above, how the Social Web WG and Solid CG captured the interest of the community
… It is good insight.
… It is also part of bookkeeping (compare actual implementations with declared intents).
laurens: good proposal. I would like to discuss it with the editors.
… Some organization may not want to share on the open what they plan to implement, but for us the transparency is good.
csarven: it is optional. These organization don't have to share. If it is useful for 80%+ of us, that's already good.
… It should also be clear that those "commitments" are not legally binding :)
laurens: I'll ping Hadrian about this discussion. Hopefully he is with us next week to continue the discussion.
AOB
jesse: there has been discussion in the CG, about whether the CG can make changes to the Solid protocol CG report.
<jeswr> https://
jesse: I'd like a WG decision to allow the CG to pursue.
<jeswr> solid/
<gb> Pull Request 711 change: allow blank nodes to be inserted in N3 Patches (by jeswr) [doc: Protocol]
laurens: unfortunately, we need more that 3 minutes.
… I will send an email to the mailing list and put this in the agenda for next week.
<laurens> 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./CG scope, and whether changes to the CG publications can be made.
<gb> Cannot create action. Validation failed. Maybe to write an e-mail is not a valid user for w3c/lws-protocol?