13:53:45 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #lws
13:53:50 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2025/07/21-lws-irc
13:54:16 <acoburn> meeting: Linked Web Storage
13:54:45 <acoburn> zakim, start meeting
13:54:45 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
13:54:47 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), acoburn
13:55:11 <acoburn> meeting: Linked Web Storage
13:55:21 <acoburn> RRSAgent, make minutes
13:55:23 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/07/21-lws-minutes.html acoburn
13:56:11 <acoburn> agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/a19ab7dc-1753-433d-bac5-64e3ad8c0a43/20250721T100000/#agenda
13:56:11 <agendabot> clear agenda
13:56:11 <agendabot> agenda+ Introductions and announcements
13:56:11 <agendabot> agenda+ Action Items
13:56:11 <agendabot> agenda+ Continued clarification of requirements
13:57:14 <TallTed> previous meeting: https://www.w3.org/2025/07/14-lws-minutes.html
13:57:14 <TallTed> next meeting: https://www.w3.org/2025/07/28-lws-minutes.html
13:58:41 <TallTed> present+
13:59:43 <eBremer> eBremer has joined #lws
14:00:20 <TallTed> chair: acoburn
14:00:53 <gibsonf1> gibsonf1 has joined #lws
14:01:12 <gibsonf1> present+
14:01:12 <acoburn> present+
14:02:11 <AZ> AZ has joined #lws
14:02:29 <AZ> present+
14:02:35 <eBremer> present+
14:02:51 <RazaN> RazaN has joined #lws
14:03:18 <jeswr> jeswr has joined #lws
14:03:26 <RazaN> +present
14:04:02 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/07/21-lws-minutes.html TallTed
14:04:37 <ryey> ryey has joined #lws
14:04:40 <Jackson> Jackson has joined #lws
14:05:00 <pchampin> present+
14:05:17 <RazaN> present+
14:05:25 <ryey> present+
14:05:31 <acoburn> scribenick: ryey
14:06:13 <acoburn> chair: ericP
14:06:34 <kaefer3000> kaefer3000 has joined #lws
14:06:43 <Jackson> present+
14:06:50 <ericP> ericP has joined #lws
14:06:54 <ericP> present+
14:06:57 <kaefer3000> present+
14:07:14 <jeswr> present+
14:07:19 <ericP> Zakim, next agendum
14:07:19 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Introductions and announcements -- taken up [from agendabot]
14:07:50 <TallTed> s/+present//
14:08:10 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/07/21-lws-minutes.html TallTed
14:08:54 <ryey> acoburn: from Lauren: don't book tickets too early. But probably going to hold a face to face meeting in Oct in Ghent. To confirm by 29 July.
14:09:02 <ryey> ericP: Is remote possible?
14:09:18 <ryey> acoburn: To confirm by Laurence. Maybe possible, but can't say for sure.
14:10:22 <ericP> q?
14:10:26 <ryey> acoburn: Some take vacations on August. Don't if any chairs are around on 11-18 Aug. Either we cancel the meeting, or to have the structured meetings led by editors for specific topics.
14:10:54 <acoburn> ack next
14:10:55 <kaefer3000> q+
14:10:58 <acoburn> ack next
14:10:59 <Zakim> bendm, you wanted to say to edit 37/9
14:11:01 <acoburn> ack next
14:11:56 <ryey> kaefer3000: The proposed dates should be in the minutes.
14:11:58 <bengo> bengo has joined #lws
14:12:01 <pchampin> s/in Oct in Ghent/on 8-9-10 Oct in Ghent
14:12:11 <ericP> Zakim, next agendum
14:12:31 <ryey> acoburn: We are dancing around the proposed dates, as other things may be in the dates (e.g. DID)
14:13:11 <acoburn> -> https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/issues?q=is%3Aissue%20state%3Aopen%20label%3Aaction Action Items
14:13:14 <jeswr> q+ is there anyone else who would like to attend the LWS meeting and is unable to attend on those dates?
14:14:00 <kaefer3000> Christoph (uvdsl) is also unable
14:14:10 <ryey> jeswr: Other than Tobias, are there any other people can't join the conference if date conflict?
14:14:55 <ryey> q+
14:15:31 <acoburn> q+ to talk about date constraints
14:15:45 <ryey> kaefer3000: it's often 8-10 for many conferences. Are there other possibilities?
14:15:55 <ericP> ack next
14:16:11 <ericP> scribe+
14:16:27 <ericP> ryey: might have conflict in Oct, will know this week
14:16:30 <ericP> scribe-
14:16:52 <ericP> ack next
14:16:53 <Zakim> acoburn, you wanted to talk about date constraints
14:17:43 <ryey> acoburn: There are lots of constraints for choosing the days... such as many other conferences. Also availability for Ghent. We'll see with Laurence to see when is possible. Realisticly there is no perfect date.
14:18:03 <ryey> ericP: Now to the real action items
14:18:34 <ryey> ericP: Any weekly summary of closed issues?
14:18:47 <ericP> ack next
14:18:52 <ryey> acoburn: Usually Hadrian does this
14:18:56 <ericP> zakim, next agendum
14:18:56 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- Continued clarification of requirements -- taken up [from agendabot]
14:19:05 <ryey> ericP: Ok, so no action, and next item
14:19:21 <Jackson> I was not here last week
14:19:22 <ryey> ericP: anyone not here last week?
14:20:10 <ryey> acoburn: we are at the stage of sorting out use cases. some are vague, and/or under development. our current goal: get to a stage to triage and cut the number of use cases.
14:20:28 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/07/21-lws-minutes.html TallTed
14:20:48 <acoburn> -> https://www.w3.org/TR/2025/DNOTE-lws-ucs-20250718/#requirements Requirements
14:21:31 <ryey> ... trying to clarify and collect the UCs. Last week we got to #37 (from bottom up). We are skipping #36... We are starting at #35 today.
14:21:41 <ericP> -> https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/w3c/lws-ucs/pull/188.html#dfn-search-and-query PR to merge SPARQL reqs (36 and 19)
<pchampin> subtopic: -> https://www.w3.org/TR/2025/DNOTE-lws-ucs-20250718/#dfn-view-based-data-sharing Requirement 35 View-Based Data Sharing
14:22:26 <ryey> acoburn: please pay attention to: Can they be done without LWS protocol to specify this? I.e. can they be done in a different layer? Or, does LWS protocol supporting this providing much added value?
14:23:22 <gibsonf1> q+ how is view-based different than access control?
14:23:30 <gibsonf1> q+ to ask how is view-based different than access control?
14:23:54 <ryey> ericP: there are several issues for 35. 63 describes a lot of how they got there.
14:24:12 <ryey> ... another is for a projection or filesystem, and makes it look like a filesystem?
14:24:33 <ryey> ... another is selective access to data, to present it in a projected/derived resource
14:25:27 <ryey> gibsonf1: it's about access control, or not? access control on the view?
14:25:31 <RazaN> RazaN has joined #lws
14:25:54 <kaefer3000> q+
14:26:02 <acoburn> ack next
14:26:04 <Zakim> gibsonf, you wanted to ask how is view-based different than access control?
14:26:05 <ryey> acoburn: I won't say it's all about access control, but the problem is part about access control.
14:26:15 <jeswr> q+
14:26:22 <ericP> ack next
14:26:38 <acoburn> ack next
14:26:47 <ryey> kaefer3000: I want to make an opinion, not to ask a question.
14:27:16 <ryey> ... acoburn's question is if this can be supported on a different layer? My opinion is yes.
14:27:46 <ryey> acoburn: This is exactly what I'm interested to hear for the meeting.
14:28:01 <ryey> ... to hear about whether something is in scope or not
14:28:03 <jeswr> https://solidlabresearch.github.io/WhatsInAPod/
14:28:05 <acoburn> ack next
14:28:31 <ryey> jeswr: I want to second kaefer3000. I'm involved in this thing for two years ("what's in a pod")
14:29:04 <ryey> ... what we want LWS to support is a vision based on that paper. Other things (views) are somewhat out of the scope of LWS
14:29:43 <ryey> acoburn: We are not voting on this. There is a general consensus that view-based sharing is out of the scope of LWS protocol.
14:30:10 <jeswr> s/a vision based on/a view into the hybrid KG described in/
<pchampin> subtopic: -> https://www.w3.org/TR/2025/DNOTE-lws-ucs-20250718/#dfn-group-based-access-control Requirement 34 Group-Based Access Control
14:30:25 <ryey> acoburn: To next one, for group-based access control
14:30:31 <gibsonf1> q+ to ask can we add hierarchies
14:30:36 <ryey> s/To next one/Now to next one/
14:30:59 <ericP> ack next
14:31:00 <Zakim> gibsonf, you wanted to ask can we add hierarchies
14:31:39 <ryey> gibsonf1: Groups may have different hierarchies. Can other hierarchies be supported? E.g. groups of groups?
14:31:51 <Jackson> q+
14:31:54 <ryey> acoburn: I can't think of any systems supporting groups of groups
14:31:59 <ryey> gibsonf1: Unix does
14:32:19 <acoburn> q?
14:32:23 <acoburn> ack next
14:33:01 <ryey> Jackson: Is this for group-based for access control view? Does this also apply for credentials?
14:33:50 <ryey> acoburn: We are doing requirements, and that can lead to different solutions. So, the two solutions may both be involved in the requirement. We'll decide that (solution) later.
14:34:19 <ryey> ericP: Do you want to capture consensus on priority?
14:34:31 <Jackson> +1 for priority of group based access control
14:34:43 <ryey> acoburn: Maybe not for now, unless editors find it useful
<pchampin> subtopic: -> https://www.w3.org/TR/2025/DNOTE-lws-ucs-20250718/#dfn-profile-management Requirement 33 Profile Management
14:35:00 <ryey> acoburn: next item
14:35:23 <ryey> ... Profile management. I don't see this has any related issues
14:35:45 <Jackson> q+
14:35:51 <ryey> eBremer: Could go to github issue #29 #57
14:35:52 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/29 -> MERGED Pull Request 29 chore: add required editor approvals and timelines for PRs (by jeswr)
14:36:06 <Jackson> q-
14:36:23 <eBremer> https://github.com/w3c/lws-ucs/issues/57
14:36:23 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/lws-ucs/issues/57 -> Issue 57 [UC] Custom resource rendering when visiting URI using browser (by renyuneyun) [triage] [usecase] [uc-data-management]
14:37:11 <Jackson> q+
14:37:16 <acoburn> ack next
14:37:17 <ryey> acoburn: 29 is definitely about identifiers for different users and different providers, and synergy between them
14:37:46 <jeswr> q+
14:37:55 <ryey> Jackson: I don't see distinction between this and the default (anyone can create multiple accounts/identifiers).
14:37:56 <acoburn> ack next
14:39:04 <ryey> jeswr: I manage multiple accounts, by multiple emails. I can come up ad hoc solutions for having different inboxes. But that's different than allowing same inbox for multiple accounts.
14:39:24 <ryey> ... Sometimes I don't want my storage root (URL) to reveal who I am.
14:39:45 <ryey> Jackson: so you don't want to bind your storage with a specific account?
14:40:36 <kaefer3000> q+
14:40:43 <ryey> jeswr: There may be a requirement to require the same resource be assigned different URLs, for privacy (of inferring identity from URL).
14:40:54 <ryey> Jackson: So that's for resources in general, not just profiles
14:41:26 <gibsonf1> q+ to ask could we argue this one needs a UC written up?
14:41:45 <ryey> jeswr: Yes. For profiles, I would like everything to be changeable (resources/info about profiles / storage)
14:42:07 <acoburn> q?
14:43:26 <acoburn> ack next
14:43:39 <ryey> Jackson: So that's not just about profiles, but resources in general. That can be a general issue for having identifiers.
14:44:16 <ericP> ack next
14:44:17 <Zakim> gibsonf, you wanted to ask could we argue this one needs a UC written up?
14:44:22 <ryey> kaefer3000: The views may also be an alias, to some degree.
14:44:25 <bengo> If the question on #33 is: should this be a priority, it seems like the answer is yes. regardless of exactly how it is implemented.
14:45:23 <jeswr> q+
14:45:40 <ryey> gibsonf1: This sounds quite difficult. Who creates that redirect URL? URL representing who owns something is a critical infrastructure.
14:46:06 <acoburn> q?
14:46:10 <acoburn> ack next
14:46:10 <ryey> ... Maybe we can think about HTTPS. By having a different URI, maybe each service may have a different certificate?
14:46:50 <ryey> jeswr: I'll write up the UC to make sense. Clarification: my comments don't mean I'm in  favor of having this item preferred.
<pchampin> subtopic: -> https://www.w3.org/TR/2025/DNOTE-lws-ucs-20250718/#dfn-clear-error-messaging Requirement 32 Clear Error Messaging
14:47:16 <ryey> acoburn: Next item: clear error messaging
14:47:34 <acoburn> -> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7807 Problem Details
14:47:52 <ericP> q+ to argue that this doesn't need tracking
14:48:00 <ryey> ... sounds great, but there are other specs for similar things. E.g., IETF document I sent. Question is: do we need to explicitly say this?
14:48:02 <ericP> ack next
14:48:02 <acoburn> ack next
14:48:03 <Zakim> ericP, you wanted to argue that this doesn't need tracking
14:49:12 <ryey> ericP: I think it won't help us to do our work by having a trackable error message. We can do that automatically
14:49:27 <ericP> q+ to argue that this doesn't need tracking
<pchampin> subtopic: -> https://www.w3.org/TR/2025/DNOTE-lws-ucs-20250718/#dfn-performance-and-scalability Requirement 31 Performance and Scalability
14:49:38 <ryey> acoburn: Next item: performance and scalability. I don't have an idea what this implies, as a normative thing.
14:49:42 <acoburn> ack next
14:49:43 <Zakim> ericP, you wanted to argue that this doesn't need tracking
14:50:26 <ryey> ... Maybe we should open the individual PRs (for the previous two items) to indicate them being removed.
14:51:06 <ryey> jeswr: As editor, we can note that right now
<pchampin> subtopic: -> https://www.w3.org/TR/2025/DNOTE-lws-ucs-20250718/#dfn-scalable-storage-management Requirement 30 Scalable Storage Management
14:51:29 <ryey> acoburn: Next item: scalable storage management
14:52:07 <kaefer3000> q+
14:52:12 <ryey> ... this sounds more implementation-specific, not storage-specific. Maybe it's possible to logically support merging different storages in the implementation
14:52:16 <acoburn> ack next
14:52:28 <ryey> ericP: Maybe reword as "mergeable storage management"
14:52:35 <jeswr> q+
14:52:38 <acoburn> +1 to what tobias said
14:52:43 <acoburn> ack next
14:52:48 <ryey> kaefer3000: Maybe specify this is for backend, not for protocol
14:53:00 <ryey> jeswr: agreed. we may also want  to remove the view-based?
14:53:01 <ryey> q+
14:53:07 <acoburn> ack next
14:53:23 <acoburn> scribe+
14:53:59 <acoburn> ryey: my rationale for supporting views is that this would need to be supported by a client that is always running or the protocol supports a mechanism for how views are handled
14:54:15 <acoburn> ... the second way would need something in the specification
14:54:34 <acoburn> ... the first way would need synchronization or holds a separate storage
14:54:57 <acoburn> ... different caveats for each, may be better to allow the protocol to support this
14:55:05 <jeswr> q+
14:55:11 <bengo> supportive of removing this ("logical unification of disparate back-ends"). it doesn't seem possible to do very well without getting into distributed transactions which is very nontrivial, and probalby easier to approach if/when there is a v1 API worked out, rather than trying to take it on at the same time as an api.
14:55:13 <ericP> ack next
14:55:14 <acoburn> scribe-
14:56:28 <acoburn> scribe+
14:57:01 <acoburn> ryey: suppose the storage provides a view where data is modified from schema 1 to schema 2
14:57:14 <acoburn> ... automatically built into storage (one option)
14:57:37 <kaefer3000> q+
14:57:39 <acoburn> ... handled by client (second option), but gets complicated when writing data back to storage
14:57:58 <jeswr> q+
14:58:10 <ericP> e.g. App1 understands FOAF but doesn't recognize the subset of schema.org that corresponds to FOAF
14:58:18 <acoburn> ack next
14:58:45 <acoburn> ack next
14:59:12 <acoburn> jeswr: this is also like profile negotiation
14:59:33 <acoburn> RRSAgent, make minutes
14:59:35 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/07/21-lws-minutes.html acoburn
14:59:41 <ericP> -> profile negotiation https://ruben.verborgh.org/articles/fine-grained-content-negotiation/
15:00:47 <ericP> -> lead to this conneg WD -> https://www.w3.org/TR/dx-prof-conneg/
15:01:00 <AZ> Content Negotiation by Profile: https://www.w3.org/TR/dx-prof-conneg/
15:01:58 <acoburn> RRSAgent, make minutes
15:02:00 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/07/21-lws-minutes.html acoburn
15:02:30 <ericP> ADJOURNED
15:02:49 <ericP> RRSAgent, make minutes
15:02:51 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/07/21-lws-minutes.html ericP
15:03:19 <pchampin> i|ericP: Now to the real action items|Topic: Action Items
15:03:28 <pchampin> RRSAgent, make minutes
15:03:30 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/07/21-lws-minutes.html pchampin
15:05:53 <pchampin> s|-> https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/issues?q=is%3Aissue%20state%3Aopen%20label%3Aaction Action Items|
15:06:45 <pchampin> s|to the real action items|to the real [action items](https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/issues?q=is%3Aissue%20state%3Aopen%20label%3Aaction)
15:07:47 <pchampin> RRSAgent, make minutes
15:07:48 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/07/21-lws-minutes.html pchampin
15:08:58 <pchampin> RRSAgent, bye
15:08:58 <RRSAgent> I see no action items