13:54:29 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #lws
13:54:34 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2025/06/09-lws-irc
13:54:56 <acoburn> acoburn has changed the topic to: Linked Web Storage Meeting 9 June, 2025
13:55:07 <acoburn> zakim, start meeting
13:55:07 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
13:55:09 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), acoburn
13:55:15 <acoburn> meeting: Linked Web Storage
13:55:49 <acoburn> agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/a19ab7dc-1753-433d-bac5-64e3ad8c0a43/20250609T100000/#agenda
13:55:50 <agendabot> clear agenda
13:55:50 <agendabot> agenda+ Introductions and announcements
13:55:50 <agendabot> agenda+ Action items
13:55:50 <agendabot> agenda+ Protocol specification roadmap
13:55:50 <agendabot> agenda+ Editor selection
13:56:04 <acoburn> chair: acoburn
13:56:10 <acoburn> RRSAgent, make minutes
13:56:12 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/06/09-lws-minutes.html acoburn
13:58:31 <uvdsl> uvdsl has joined #lws
13:59:00 <otherJackson> otherJackson has joined #lws
13:59:16 <gibsonf1> gibsonf1 has joined #lws
13:59:26 <gibsonf1> present+
14:00:16 <acoburn> present+
14:00:51 <otherJackson> present+
14:00:59 <uvdsl> present+
14:01:14 <eBremer> eBremer has joined #lws
14:01:15 <jeswr> jeswr has joined #lws
14:01:19 <jeswr> present+
14:01:20 <eBremer> present+
14:01:34 <cpn> cpn has joined #lws
14:01:38 <cpn> present+
14:02:15 <TallTed> present+
14:02:50 <ryey9> ryey9 has joined #lws
14:02:54 <acoburn> -> https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/wiki/Scribe-list Scribe list
14:03:31 <ryey> ryey has joined #lws
14:04:06 <uvdsl> scribe+
14:04:25 <acoburn> zakim, open agendum 1
14:04:25 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Introductions and announcements -- taken up [from agendabot]
14:04:36 <ryey> present+
14:04:37 <pchampin> present+
14:04:44 <uvdsl> acoburn: starting with intros and announcements...
14:04:50 <uvdsl> ... anyone new to the group?
14:05:18 <csarven> csarven has left #lws
14:05:28 <uvdsl> otherJackson: Hi, I am Jackson Morgan - I met a lot of you guys previously, have been around the Solid ecosystem for some years
14:05:35 <uvdsl> ... excited to get invovled in spec work again
14:05:48 <uvdsl> ... as an invited expert
14:06:15 <uvdsl> acoburn: Jackson did write much of the Primer around Solid-OIDC, so he helped making Solid more accessible
14:06:41 <uvdsl> ... any anouncements?
14:06:51 <uvdsl> - silence -
14:07:39 <uvdsl> ... at the end of the meeting, we will have a discussion around the editors of the spec - so we can revisit the discussion from last meeting
14:08:01 <uvdsl> ... main point of today is the protocol specification roadmap
14:08:05 <acoburn> zakim, open agendum 2
14:08:05 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Action items -- taken up [from agendabot]
14:08:32 <uvdsl> acoburn: hadrian is not here today, so we will skip that
14:08:57 <uvdsl> ... Pierre-Antoine, do you have an update on the tooling?
14:09:21 <uvdsl> pchampin: not really, hopefully there will be an update next week
14:09:35 <uvdsl> acoburn: no other specific actions
14:09:41 <acoburn> zakim, open agendum 3
14:09:41 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- Protocol specification roadmap -- taken up [from agendabot]
14:09:53 <uvdsl> acoburn: Let me post a link
14:10:04 <acoburn> -> https://w3c.github.io/lws-protocol/ Current protocol draft
14:10:28 <jeswr> jeswr has joined #lws
14:11:00 <uvdsl> ... and now over to Erich and Jesse. This document is a draft, it is a skeleton, it is likely to change, there is no normative text anywhere, it is a number of general categories that we think are relevant
14:11:21 <uvdsl> eBremer: I ll share my screen.
14:11:33 <uvdsl> ... this is meant to be a starter for discussion
14:11:46 <uvdsl> ... nothing is meant to be normative. if it is, that's a mistake
14:12:00 <uvdsl> ... any changes will be done via PRs, please contribute
14:12:22 <uvdsl> jeswr: Let's go through the doc and list the categories ...
14:12:36 <uvdsl> q+
14:12:54 <uvdsl> eBremer: goes through the list... points out the REST Binding
14:13:16 <acoburn> ack next
14:13:19 <acoburn> scribe+
14:13:39 <acoburn> uvdsl: what is the reference point for the binding? or is that a suggestion
14:13:55 <jeswr> q+
14:14:02 <acoburn> eBremer: this is a suggestion, still up for debate
14:14:05 <pchampin> q+
14:14:15 <acoburn> uvdsl: could we have more documentation about this approach
14:14:24 <uvdsl> jeswr: let me provide some context
14:14:26 <acoburn> scribe-
14:14:29 <acoburn> ack next
14:15:00 <uvdsl> ... this section allows us to define operations, and then in the binding section
14:15:02 <uvdsl> q+
14:15:14 <uvdsl> ... we can have the concrete HTTP methods explained
14:15:16 <acoburn> q+ to mention future proofing
14:15:53 <uvdsl> ... separation of that means, that we can reference the abstract operations instead of the HTTP method itself
14:16:05 <uvdsl> ... it should be a presentation thing, that should make reading easily,
14:16:26 <uvdsl> ... and if we decide that we want to have more other things like GraphQL, or other enterprisy mechansims, then we can do that
14:16:42 <uvdsl> ... but we are expecting that we will have HTTP first and foremost
14:16:46 <acoburn> ack next
14:17:46 <uvdsl> pchampin: Just to point out, we are not in cruise speed - uvdsl, please feel free to open an issue and explain why this needs more discussion, as an anchor for discussion
14:17:53 <acoburn> ack next
14:17:59 <acoburn> scribe+
14:18:31 <acoburn> uvdsl: thanks for pointing out the path forward, I would appreciate having anchor points
14:18:59 <acoburn> ... in case someone asks whether something has been discussed
14:19:15 <acoburn> ... a more stuctured approach would be helpful
14:19:18 <acoburn> scribe-
14:19:27 <acoburn> ack next
14:19:28 <Zakim> acoburn, you wanted to mention future proofing
14:20:07 <uvdsl> acoburn: one of the considerations: there was a conversation in the group (no reference rn), whether we would be using DID methods or just HTTP methods.
14:20:42 <uvdsl> ... there were concerns that we should not say the LWS protocol should use HTTP which then would hinder DID methods in LWS
14:20:56 <uvdsl> ... and there was some agreement [citation needed]
14:21:09 <uvdsl> ... and this would hinder adoption/adaptation in the future
14:21:21 <uvdsl> ... so we wanted to go for a loose coupling
14:21:47 <acoburn> q?
14:21:50 <uvdsl> ... nobody argues that HTTP is not central to LWS but still it should not be a hard coupling
14:22:03 <ericP> ericP has joined #lws
14:22:14 <ericP> present+
14:22:43 <uvdsl> jswr: To the roadmap of the spec document, and also on how we can best engage the group in this and make progress
14:22:55 <uvdsl> jeswr: the order of the sections
14:23:06 <uvdsl> ... we are not going to work in ordering in the document
14:23:51 <uvdsl> ... we propose to work on the categories ordered as we expect consensus to arise, so starting with the lesser ones and then progressing to the ones that need more discussion
14:24:06 <uvdsl> ... e.g. maybe starting with resource identification
14:24:21 <uvdsl> ... probably using HTTP but maybe also discussion DIDs
14:24:33 <uvdsl> ... Next area, would be operations
14:24:35 <uvdsl> ... CRUD
14:24:58 <uvdsl> ... once we got resource identification and operations defined, then we could work on Section 9 - bindings for REST
14:25:11 <uvdsl> ... to bring together what combination of resource identifiers and operations
14:25:33 <uvdsl> ... If there are other topics that anyone would like to adress earlier
14:25:39 <uvdsl> ... that would be good to know
14:25:43 <gibsonf1> q+ to ask if discovery section is where search/query etc would be covered?
14:25:45 <uvdsl> ... so probably open an issue
14:25:55 <uvdsl> ... to have that discussion
14:26:12 <uvdsl> ... the work will be done via PRs
14:26:28 <jeswr> https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/issues/18
14:26:29 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/issues/18 -> Issue 18 Research Topics (by jeswr)
14:26:36 <uvdsl> ... we would like to set up streams of research
14:26:54 <uvdsl> ... to get a clear understanding of prior art
14:27:08 <uvdsl> ... in the Solid ecosystem and outside of the Solid ecosystem
14:27:24 <uvdsl> ... we want to create a Wiki of all of the prior art
14:27:31 <uvdsl> ... to have reference points for discussions
14:27:43 <uvdsl> q+
14:28:08 <uvdsl> ... It would be great to have certain individuals who want to champion certain areas
14:28:22 <acoburn> ack next
14:28:22 <uvdsl> ... send an email via the public list
14:28:24 <Zakim> gibsonf, you wanted to ask if discovery section is where search/query etc would be covered?
14:28:58 <uvdsl> jeswr: yes, probably search goes into Discovery
14:29:17 <uvdsl> ... something like type index
14:29:35 <uvdsl> ... query would be a more heavy weight discovery mechanisms
14:29:43 <uvdsl> ... lots of different options for query
14:29:50 <acoburn> ack next
14:29:53 <acoburn> scribe+
14:30:34 <acoburn> uvdsl: regarding research streams, in coming from the solid community, there have been discussions on all of these topics
14:30:45 <acoburn> ... might be good to reach out to community group
14:30:57 <acoburn> ... there are experts in the Solid group already
14:31:11 <acoburn> ... engaging and reaching out to these experts would be good
14:31:24 <uvdsl> jeswr: 100% agree
14:31:28 <acoburn> q+ to mention invited experts
14:31:30 <otherJackson> q+
14:31:32 <ericP> q+ to say that the spec (index.html) is in the root of the repo vs. lws-ucs, which has them under /spec
14:31:43 <gibsonf1> q+ to ask about research, would this include documenting how existing implementations are using WAC (such as TrinPod) or Discovery?
14:31:51 <uvdsl> ... having the champions on the topic, would more be in that direction as a gatherer, not doing the research themselves
14:32:09 <acoburn> scribe-
14:32:13 <acoburn> ack next
14:32:14 <Zakim> acoburn, you wanted to mention invited experts
14:32:45 <uvdsl> acoburn: Just to mention, this is a perfect example of inviting expert , or having guests come in,
14:33:00 <uvdsl> ... this is something that the W3C Process affords us
14:33:07 <acoburn> q?
14:33:07 <eBremer> q+
14:33:12 <acoburn> ack next
14:33:19 <uvdsl> ... there are alot of experts here already, but we can pull in more as there are more outside of the group
14:33:38 <uvdsl> otherJackson: Are the headings locked down in the spec?
14:33:46 <jeswr> q+ response n enforcable provenance
14:33:59 <uvdsl> ... and, will more things be added? - or is this it?
14:34:01 <acoburn> ack jeswr
14:34:16 <uvdsl> jeswr: This document has been fairly bootstraped
14:34:24 <uvdsl> ... sections can be added or removed
14:34:33 <uvdsl> ... as the group comes to consensus
14:34:50 <uvdsl> ... the provenance discussion had been earlier in the group [citation needed]
14:35:12 <uvdsl> ... and the agreement [citation needed] was that provenance and such things would be good to have
14:35:28 <uvdsl> ... but these things would need to be incubated in a CG and then brought in to the WG [citation needed]
14:36:07 <uvdsl> otherJackson: So for the research streams, this is only prior art, not inventing something new?
14:36:13 <uvdsl> jeswr: yes
14:36:24 <acoburn> q?
14:36:29 <acoburn> ack next
14:36:30 <Zakim> ericP, you wanted to say that the spec (index.html) is in the root of the repo vs. lws-ucs, which has them under /spec
14:36:35 <uvdsl> acoburn: To add: but not only from a WG! e.g. WAC is just CG
14:37:16 <uvdsl> ericP: the document is in the root - before people clone the repo, do we want that? or should it under /spec?
14:37:25 <uvdsl> ... anyone an opinion?
14:37:39 <uvdsl> acoburn: if anyone does, please open an issue
14:37:42 <acoburn> ack next
14:37:43 <Zakim> gibsonf, you wanted to ask about research, would this include documenting how existing implementations are using WAC (such as TrinPod) or Discovery?
14:37:53 <uvdsl> ericP: sooner better than later, before too many people clone it an open PR
14:37:53 <pchampin> will open an issue -- I think having it under spec/ is better ;-)
14:38:08 <acoburn> q?
14:38:24 <uvdsl> gibsonf1: Adding to jackson's question on the research streams
14:38:32 <jeswr> q+ documentation
14:38:39 <acoburn> ack jeswr
14:38:51 <uvdsl> ... we had to modify the algorithm to evaluate WAC, and have it working, should we have that in the prior art as well?
14:40:03 <ericP> pchampin, do we want to effect the move in this meeting before it causes more trouble?
14:40:06 <uvdsl> jeswr: For each prior art, e.g. WAC, what we want to identify are capabilites and limitations - and the implementation experience would fit into limitations. The specifics of how you fixed WAC is not too important right now, in order to inform the decision for the spec
14:40:22 <uvdsl> ... it would be good to know what limitations there are
14:40:40 <uvdsl> gibsonf1: the limitation wasn't WAC but the discovery mechanism present in Solid
14:40:55 <uvdsl> ... on hierarchies for agents
14:42:07 <jeswr> q+
14:42:13 <uvdsl> ... there were discussion around vcard and hierarchies of agents in the Solid channels
14:42:55 <uvdsl> acoburn: interjecting - maybe we should not go into the details here, on the issues that Jesse opens, stay highlevel and mention issues
14:43:03 <acoburn> q?
14:43:06 <uvdsl> ... lets avoid going into rabbit hohles
14:43:20 <uvdsl> jeswr: and link to the discussion!
14:43:20 <acoburn> ack next
14:43:42 <uvdsl> eBremer: Wanted to add my sentiment on bring in people from e.g. the Solid CG
14:43:46 <uvdsl> ... I agree
14:43:52 <uvdsl> ... do bring them in!
14:43:53 <acoburn> ack next
14:44:16 <acoburn> ack next
14:44:42 <uvdsl> jeswr: this is it for the roadmap
14:45:05 <acoburn> zakim, open agendum 4
14:45:05 <Zakim> agendum 4 -- Editor selection -- taken up [from agendabot]
14:45:08 <uvdsl> acoburn: Just so folks know: there will be more discussion on this
14:45:18 <pchampin> q+
14:45:23 <ericP> chair: ericP
14:45:28 <ericP> q?
14:46:14 <uvdsl> pchampin: as acoburn mentioned, there was a lot of dicussion on the appointment of the spec editors
14:46:30 <uvdsl> ... there were concerns that the editors did not publically volunteer
14:46:45 <uvdsl> ... there was Sarven who volunteered
14:46:50 <uvdsl> ... publically
14:47:07 <uvdsl> ... and following up on the call for expressions of interested
14:47:28 <uvdsl> ... these did not need to be public ... might also have been private
14:47:37 <uvdsl> ... which did not seem like a problem
14:47:49 <uvdsl> ... so I was surprised that this became an issue now
14:48:28 <uvdsl> ... There was another issue around that the decision was made behind closed doors
14:48:40 <uvdsl> ... the W3C is alot about openess
14:48:48 <uvdsl> ... but not everything needs to be open
14:48:53 <uvdsl> ... such as the decision on the chair
14:49:15 <TallTed> q+
14:49:21 <TallTed> ack pchampin
14:49:23 <uvdsl> ... choosing one individual over another is a sensitive discussion
14:49:32 <uvdsl> ... which maybe should not be in the open
14:49:55 <uvdsl> ... the discussion itself .... but the decision is in the open, just as in the last meeting
14:50:15 <uvdsl> ... the main concern is - as pointed out last meeting - that the group of editors should be a group who works together
14:50:41 <uvdsl> ... and if things dont work out then this gets reverted to the group
14:51:24 <uvdsl> ... for example, I had private discussions with Sarven, where we exchanged opinions but I was seemingly  not able to convince him that his contributions are still valued
14:51:55 <ericP> ack next
14:52:23 <uvdsl> TallTed: for those who havent noticed, Sarven did officially leave the group - in part because of this interaction
14:52:45 <uvdsl> ... the thought that having this partically behind closed doors being a feature is questionable to me
14:53:02 <uvdsl> ... but anyways, the way the interaction occured leaves a bitter tast
14:53:36 <uvdsl> ... there was no response or acknowledgement or follow up on the public volunteering of Sarven - which I think should have been public as well
14:53:53 <uvdsl> ... and then decision might have been in private, fine
14:54:18 <uvdsl> ... there were 2 volunteers with enough capacity and one who expressed that they have a full plate
14:54:23 <pchampin> q+
14:54:36 <uvdsl> ... still the choice as is
14:54:52 <uvdsl> ... but still the style of interaction was poor
14:55:21 <uvdsl> ... some discussions can be behind closed doors but the publication should have been an email - not being said in a meeting
14:55:38 <uvdsl> ericP: what should have been different?
14:55:49 <ericP> ack next
14:56:04 <uvdsl> TallTed: Be clear about how things will work. Public nominations in public or private, private nominations in private
14:57:02 <uvdsl> pchampin: Thanks Ted, I insist that the process was followed - I did not say that the interaction was good - this should have been handled in a better way - and I hear that many individuals feel that this could have been handled better
14:57:05 <TallTed> s/private nominations in private/private selections in private/
14:57:16 <ericP> q?
14:57:35 <uvdsl> ... I just want to say that we are not going against the process - not taking away from the style of interaction and how people feel about it
14:58:11 <pchampin> RRSAgent, make minutes
14:58:12 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/06/09-lws-minutes.html pchampin
15:43:15 <acoburn> acoburn has left #lws