14:57:39 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #lws
14:57:43 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2025/02/24-lws-irc
15:00:13 <eBremer> eBremer has joined #lws
15:01:20 <hadrian> hadrian has joined #lws
15:01:38 <danbri> danbri has joined #lws
15:01:56 <acoburn> zakim, start meeting
15:01:56 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
15:01:58 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), acoburn
15:02:06 <acoburn> meeting: Linked Web Storage
15:02:09 <acoburn> chair: acoburn
15:02:17 <acoburn> RRSAgent, make minutes
15:02:19 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/02/24-lws-minutes.html acoburn
15:02:43 <ryey> ryey has joined #lws
15:02:45 <csarven> present+
15:03:00 <eBremer> present+
15:03:00 <hadrian> present+
15:03:03 <danbri> present+
15:03:07 <laurens> laurens has joined #lws
15:03:11 <laurens> present+
15:03:58 <acoburn> present+
15:04:22 <AZ> AZ has joined #lws
15:04:41 <pchampin> present+
15:04:42 <AZ> present+
15:04:43 <pchampin> scribe+
15:04:43 <acoburn> scribenick: pchampin
15:05:02 <ryey> present+
15:05:07 <pchampin> Zakim, open item 1
15:05:07 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Introductions & Announcements -- taken up [from agendabot]
15:05:48 <pchampin> danbri: I have been involved in RDF since 1997. Currently unemployed dad and invited expert.
15:06:23 <pchampin> ... I was an editor of RDF Schema, which was not ready at the end of the first RDF WG. Created the RDF Interest Group to continue the work.
15:06:40 <pchampin> ... Invented FOAF in a pub with some friends, and got engaged in Linked Data since then.
15:06:53 <pchampin> ... Worked on Schema.org at Google until recently.
15:07:30 <pchampin> ... Interested in seeing how RDF, LWS progress, in particular in relation with AI.
15:07:49 <jeswr> jeswr has joined #lws
15:08:22 <pchampin> Sam Gbafa: founder of Tiny Cloud, a small company where we care about sovereign user data.
15:08:35 <pchampin> ... Not using Semantic Web technologies, but our vision seems aligned with that of this WG.
15:09:21 <pchampin> ... I have a AI and crypto background, familiar with standard work and W3C.
15:09:52 <pchampin> ... Worked with SpruceID before.
15:10:57 <pchampin> zakim, open next item
15:10:57 <Zakim> agendum 5 -- Potential blocking items, progress & timeline for UCR document -- taken up [from agendabot]
15:11:14 <sam> sam has joined #lws
15:11:33 <acoburn> agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/a19ab7dc-1753-433d-bac5-64e3ad8c0a43/20250224T100000/#agenda
15:11:35 <agendabot> clear agenda
15:11:35 <agendabot> agenda+ Introduction and Announcements
15:11:35 <agendabot> agenda+ Pending Action Items](https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+label%3Aaction)
15:11:35 <agendabot> agenda+ Position of the WG w.r.t. the Editor's Draft of the protocol
15:11:36 <agendabot> agenda+ Moving towards a first draft of the Use Cases and Requirements document
15:11:42 <pchampin> zakim, open item 2
15:11:42 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Pending Action Items](https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+label%3Aaction) -- taken up [from agendabot]
15:11:53 <pchampin> s/agendum 5 -- Potential blocking items, progress & timeline for UCR document -- taken up [from agendabot]/
15:12:27 <pchampin> acoburn: skipping the "permaitem" at the bottom
15:13:01 <pchampin> ... hadrian, I think that w3c/lws-protocol#13 is complete, right?
15:13:07 <pchampin> hadrian: yes, the PR was merged
15:13:07 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/issues/13 -> CLOSED Action 13 define a requirements template for the lws-ucs repository (on hzbarcea) due 2025-02-03
15:13:39 <pchampin> acoburn: the next one w3c/lws-protocol#15 is also assigned to hadrian.
15:13:40 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/issues/15 -> Action 15 introduce both the term owner and controller in the glossary, and clarify their meaning. (on hzbarcea) due 2025-02-24
15:13:56 <pchampin> hadrian: this is kind of done; there are no roles specified at the moment.
15:14:19 <pchampin> ... There will be more clarifications needed when we introduce them.
15:15:23 <pchampin> ... pchampin made a comment suggesting to keep both terms.
15:15:43 <pchampin> pchampin: I don't remember this specific comment, but my recollection is that several people on the last call wanted to keep both.
15:15:58 <pchampin> acoburn: it boils down to the role of the glossary.
15:16:24 <pchampin> hadrian: I think that in the context of the glossary, they are interchangeable.
15:17:15 <pchampin> ... But when we define roles, we might want to define them separately. But should be able to move forward right now.
15:17:28 <pchampin> acoburn: any objection to close w3c/lws-protocol#15 ?
15:17:51 <pchampin> csarven: not an objection but a comment.
15:18:21 <pchampin> ... The issue introduces both terms, but the PR introduces only one.
15:19:04 <pchampin> ... There seem to be a difference between the decision taken last week and the PR.
15:19:37 <pchampin> hadrian: there was an interesting discussion, suggesting we reuse the work done in the VC WG on the Controlled Identifier spec.
15:20:30 <pchampin> ... I think the agreement last time was to introduce both as roles, but not as terms.
15:20:53 <pchampin> acoburn: my understanding was to have definitions of both terms, because they are slippery and may create confusion.
15:21:14 <pchampin> ... So we should keep the issue open.
15:21:21 <pchampin> hadrian: then I would expect comments in the issue or the PR to clarify the ask.
15:21:33 <pchampin> acoburn: agreed, I'll comment in the issue.
15:21:48 <pchampin> zakim, open item 3
15:21:48 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- Position of the WG w.r.t. the Editor's Draft of the protocol -- taken up [from agendabot]
15:21:59 <pchampin> acoburn: this one came up at the very end of last week meeting.
15:22:21 <pchampin> ... The question is our position towards the Community Group working on the protocol CG report.
15:22:38 <pchampin> ... The CG report was published as v0.11, and there is an Editors' Draft as well.
15:22:51 <pchampin> ... Both are listed in our charter as input to this WG.
15:23:10 <sam> Can we link to the editors draft here?
15:23:55 <pchampin> ... At the same time, the CG has been working on some issues (the content is not important here).
15:24:17 <pchampin> jesse: it was unclear to CG members whether the Editors' Draft was locked.
15:24:49 <pchampin> ... It would be good if the LWS WG could signal 1) if it intends to consider changes made to the Editors' Draft now,
15:25:05 <pchampin> ... and 2) when would be the deadline to take into account such changes?
15:25:05 <pchampin> q+
15:25:27 <acoburn> ack next
15:25:46 <csarven> q+ re https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-solid/2025Feb/0020.html and intention behind https://github.com/solid/solid-wg-charter/pull/63 re ED
15:25:47 <gb> https://github.com/solid/solid-wg-charter/pull/63 -> MERGED Pull Request 63 clarify the handling of low-maturity normative references (by pchampin) [ac-review]
15:26:31 <acoburn> ack csarven
15:26:31 <Zakim> csarven, you wanted to discuss https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-solid/2025Feb/0020.html and intention behind https://github.com/solid/solid-wg-charter/pull/63 re ED
15:26:50 <pchampin> pchampin: I would be concerned if the CG published a new version of the spec (wrong signal to the outside world), but working on the ED is ok IMO.
15:27:00 <pchampin> ... The work done by the CG will be useful to us anyway.
15:27:14 <pchampin> csarven: some context on the writing of the charter:
15:28:01 <pchampin> ... the chartering took time. The CG was continuing to publish new versions during that time (0.10 -> 0.11).
15:28:40 <pchampin> ... The intention of mentioning the ED was *not* to lock it. The published version is locked, obviously.
15:29:42 <pchampin> ... Another point: technically the notion of Editors' Draft does not exist for Community Groups, only for Working Group.
15:30:20 <acoburn> q+
15:30:25 <pchampin> ... We could decide to only take into account what's in the published version, on also what's in the ED.
15:30:31 <acoburn> ack acoburn
15:30:44 <jeswr> jeswr has joined #lws
15:30:52 <pchampin> s/only for Working Groups./only for Working Groups. This "ED" exists for historical reason.
15:31:25 <pchampin> acoburn: regardless of the actual issue, if something is amiss and the CG is able to sort that out, I think this would be helpful.
15:31:49 <csarven> q+
15:31:57 <pchampin> ... I would only expect minor changes, though, not some radical rework of the spec.
15:31:58 <laurens> q+
15:32:00 <acoburn> ack csarven
15:32:45 <acoburn> ack laurens
15:33:00 <pchampin> csarven: the WG can pick and chose what it takes into account, it does not *have* to adopt the latest changes in the ED.
15:33:33 <pchampin> laurens: I would also be worried if the CG took a different direction with the protocol.
15:34:03 <pchampin> ... Not a problem for us as we can chose what we adopt, but this could cause confusion for other people.
15:34:47 <pchampin> acoburn: jesse, hadrian: is this clear for you?
15:35:01 <pchampin> jesse: it is clear, and aligned with my expectations.
15:35:21 <csarven> q+ PROPOSAL that the WG and CG should respond to proposals in https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-solid/2025Feb/0020.html
15:35:34 <acoburn> ack csarven
15:35:36 <pchampin> ... It would be good to have a clear statement from the WG chairs to the public mailing list of the CG.
15:35:46 <pchampin> hadrian: that's also good for me.
15:36:16 <pchampin> csarven: there is a proposal @@1 proposing a mutual understanding.
15:36:27 <pchampin> ... It is very flexible for either side.
15:36:59 <pchampin> acoburn: sounds great, I'll take an action to respond from the WG's side.
15:37:09 <acoburn> ACTION: acoburn will respond to the aforementioned thread from the LWS WG
15:37:17 <gb> Cannot create action. Validation failed. Maybe acoburn will respond is not a valid user for w3c/lws-protocol?
15:38:29 <pchampin> zakim, open item 4
15:38:29 <Zakim> agendum 4 -- Moving towards a first draft of the Use Cases and Requirements document -- taken up [from agendabot]
15:39:41 <acoburn> scribe+
15:40:26 <acoburn> pchampin: we are six months into wg. we have a lot of use cases, but we need to have more visible progress on UC document
15:40:53 <pchampin> pchampin: we are ~6 months into our charter, the have a lot of use-cases (that's good) but not much visible progress on the UCR document itself.
15:40:53 <acoburn> laurens: UCR document is a blocking requirement for work on the protocol
15:41:01 <acoburn> scribe-
15:41:07 <danbri> zakim, q+
15:41:07 <Zakim> I see danbri on the speaker queue
15:41:24 <acoburn> ack danbri
15:41:45 <pchampin> danbri: is there a Use Cases and Requirements from Solid, which we could reuse?
15:41:57 <pchampin> acoburn: there are a lot of different documents in different places.
15:42:12 <pchampin> ... Some of them have not aged very well and are not very well defined.
15:42:43 <pchampin> ... Our goal was to reference those when possible, but having our own list, better curated.
15:43:05 <pchampin> danbri: is there an informal sense that everyone is going in the same direction?
15:43:07 <csarven> q+
15:43:16 <acoburn> ack csarven
15:43:27 <pchampin> ... Will our use-cases influence back the Solid community?
15:43:48 <pchampin> csarven: tough question. Generally yes, but the Solid vision is very broad and sometimes vague.
15:44:37 <pchampin> ... Some solutions developed in other W3C groups or elsewhere have some overlap, sometimes compatible, not always integrated in the Solid spec.
15:45:16 <pchampin> danbri: it is natural for a project like Solid to be more exploratory.
15:45:52 <pchampin> q?
15:45:57 <pchampin> q+
15:46:07 <acoburn> ack pchampin
15:47:06 <acoburn> scribe+
15:47:21 <acoburn> pchampin: would this work benefit from a second editor?
15:47:30 <acoburn> scribe-
15:48:01 <pchampin> hadrian: the question has been asked before, and the response was: yes, it would be great to have a co-editor.
15:48:34 <pchampin> ... But noone volunteered so far.
15:49:14 <TallTed> TallTed has joined #lws
15:49:15 <pchampin> acoburn: it is not necessary to answer right now. People can mull this over. People not on the call will also see it.
15:49:48 <pchampin> ... Please think about it. If you are interested, you can reach out to any of the chair, pchampin, hadrian, or to the whole group.
15:50:34 <hadrian> q+
15:50:37 <pchampin> ... Any more comments on this topic, or another topic that we can fit into 5 minutes?
15:50:44 <acoburn> ack hadrian
15:51:15 <pchampin> hadrian: the template for requirements, but there are no requirements there.
15:51:22 <pchampin> ... My plan for next week is to add some.
15:51:48 <TallTed> present+
15:52:20 <pchampin> RRSAgent, make minutes
15:52:22 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/02/24-lws-minutes.html pchampin
16:32:34 <acoburn> acoburn has left #lws
16:33:11 <pchampin> zakim, bye
16:33:11 <Zakim> leaving.  As of this point the attendees have been laurens, eBremer, csarven, pchampin, ryey, bendm, AZ, ericP, ½, dmitriz, jesse, hadrian, danbri, acoburn, TallTed
16:33:11 <Zakim> Zakim has left #lws
16:33:16 <pchampin> RRSAgent, bye
16:33:16 <RRSAgent> I see 1 open action item saved in https://www.w3.org/2025/02/24-lws-actions.rdf :
16:33:16 <RRSAgent> ACTION: acoburn will respond to the aforementioned thread from the LWS WG [1]
16:33:16 <RRSAgent>   recorded in https://www.w3.org/2025/02/24-lws-irc#T15-37-09