13:29:15 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #lws
13:29:20 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2025/09/08-lws-irc
13:29:22 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #lws
13:29:53 <TallTed> meeting: Linked Web Storage WG
13:29:53 <TallTed> agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/a19ab7dc-1753-433d-bac5-64e3ad8c0a43/20250908T100000/
13:29:54 <agendabot> clear agenda
13:29:54 <agendabot> agenda+ Introductions & announcements
13:29:54 <agendabot> agenda+ Action items
13:29:54 <agendabot> agenda+ Continued discussion of -> requirements https://w3c.github.io/lws-ucs/spec/#requirements ( -> #1 https://w3c.github.io/lws-ucs/spec/#dfn-globally-unique-identifiers and -> #2 https://w3c.github.io/lws-ucs/spec/#dfn-use-of-service-providers )
13:29:56 <agendabot> agenda+ Prioritization of requirements: How should we approach this?
13:31:41 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/09/08-lws-minutes.html TallTed
13:34:36 <TallTed> TallTed has joined #lws
13:38:16 <TallTed> previous meeting: https://www.w3.org/2025/08/25-lws-minutes.html
13:38:18 <TallTed> next meeting: https://www.w3.org/2025/09/15-lws-minutes.html
13:38:54 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/09/08-lws-minutes.html TallTed
13:40:28 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/09/08-lws-minutes.html TallTed
13:43:41 <acoburn> acoburn has joined #lws
13:57:45 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/09/08-lws-minutes.html TallTed
13:59:31 <acoburn> present+
14:00:06 <acoburn> agenda?
14:00:16 <pchampin> present+
14:02:08 <gibsonf1> gibsonf1 has joined #lws
14:02:08 <bendm> bendm has joined #lws
14:02:13 <gibsonf1> present+
14:02:14 <bendm> present+
14:02:36 <eBremer> eBremer has joined #lws
14:02:39 <acoburn> chair: acoburn
14:02:56 <eBremer> present+
14:03:12 <ericP> ericP has joined #lws
14:03:16 <acoburn> scribenick: ericP
14:03:17 <ericP> present+
14:03:31 <acoburn> RRSAgent, make minutes
14:03:33 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/09/08-lws-minutes.html acoburn
14:03:59 <TallTed> present+
14:04:11 <jeswr> jeswr has joined #lws
14:04:17 <jeswr> present+
14:04:47 <ryey> ryey has joined #lws
14:05:18 <hadrian> hadrian has joined #lws
14:05:21 <acoburn> zakim, open agendum 1
14:05:22 <hadrian> present+
14:05:22 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Introductions & announcements -- taken up [from agendabot]
14:05:46 <Jackson> Jackson has joined #lws
14:05:50 <ryey> present+
14:05:53 <Jackson> present+
14:06:42 <ericP> acoburn: any introductions?
14:07:43 <ericP> acoburn: Lawrence isn't here today but I'll ask him to send to the WG mailing list info for hotels for the F2F which is in a little more than a month
14:07:59 <acoburn> zakim, open agendum 2
14:07:59 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Action items -- taken up [from agendabot]
14:08:23 <RazaN> RazaN has joined #lws
14:08:57 <ericP> [poll for unlisted actions]
14:09:02 <acoburn> zakim, open agendum 3
14:09:02 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- Continued discussion of -> requirements https://w3c.github.io/lws-ucs/spec/#requirements ( -> #1 https://w3c.github.io/lws-ucs/spec/#dfn-globally-unique-identifiers
14:09:05 <Zakim> ... and -> #2 https://w3c.github.io/lws-ucs/spec/#dfn-use-of-service-providers ) -- taken up [from agendabot]
14:09:35 <ericP> acoburn: over the last 2 months, we've looked at the draft requirements for the LWS spec
14:10:06 <ericP> ... currently have 39 candidate reqs, with 2 left to clarify
14:10:39 <ericP> ... goal: have an indication for the editors of what to focus on
14:11:11 <ericP> ... triage to important | nice-to-have | out-of-scope
14:11:47 <ericP> ... after we review the last two, we'll discuss the triage process
14:13:19 <ericP> hadrian: 2 Use of Service Providers could say "spec doesn't preclude service providers (e.g. for scalability)
14:13:26 <ericP> acoburn: rename now?
14:13:55 <ericP> hadrian: discuss now or should I take a stab at it for next week?
14:14:32 <acoburn> action: hadrian to open PR to simplify and clarify the "Use of Storage Providers" requirement
14:14:40 <gb> Created -> action #34 https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/issues/34
14:14:40 <ericP> ... i'll create a PR with my pref phrasing and i'll include alternatives [in case others have a different pref]
14:14:50 <pchampin> i|2 Use of Service Providers could say|subtopic: https://www.w3.org/TR/2025/DNOTE-lws-ucs-20250908/#dfn-use-of-service-providers
14:15:28 <ericP> [taking up 1. Globally Unique Identifiers]
14:15:32 <pchampin> subtopic: -> https://www.w3.org/TR/2025/DNOTE-lws-ucs-20250908/#dfn-globally-unique-identifiers
14:16:11 <ericP> acoburn: how much should we specifiy this?
14:16:14 <pchampin> s|subtopic: -> https://www.w3.org/TR/2025/DNOTE-lws-ucs-20250908/#dfn-globally-unique-identifiers|subtopic: -> https://www.w3.org/TR/2025/DNOTE-lws-ucs-20250908/#dfn-globally-unique-identifiers Globally Unique Identifiers
14:16:18 <ericP> ... we could say:
14:16:28 <ericP> ... .. identifiers need to be URIs
14:16:37 <dmitriz> no it wouldn't :) DIDs are URLs
14:16:39 <gibsonf1> q+ to ask about talking about resources in a pod with uri from another pod
14:16:41 <hadrian> q+
14:16:47 <ericP> ... .. identifiers need to be URLs (i.e. no e.g. DIDs)
14:16:55 <TallTed> requiring HTTP URIs would rule out DIDs
14:16:57 <dmitriz> unless you specifically mean 'https url'
14:17:04 <acoburn> ack next
14:17:05 <Zakim> gibsonf, you wanted to ask about talking about resources in a pod with uri from another pod
14:17:38 <ericP> gibsonf1: can you reference a URI in POD2 from POD1
14:17:48 <TallTed> q+
14:18:18 <ericP> acoburn: do you meant the URI that serves as an ID or as a locator?
14:18:27 <RazaN> present +
14:19:04 <TallTed> present+ RazaN
14:19:06 <ericP> gibsonf1: e.g. ontologies: it's often helpful to re-define/enhance ontologies in your POD
14:19:51 <ericP> .... how would you reference with an ID that won't bring you to the referenced item
14:19:54 <ericP> q+
14:20:02 <acoburn> ack TallTed
14:20:35 <ericP> TallTed: not recommended to redefine someone else's ontology term
14:20:59 <ericP> ... you can derive, but then you'd mint a new URI
14:21:35 <Jackson> q+
14:21:59 <ericP> ... the diff between a reference and the referenced item is important
14:22:34 <ericP> gibsonf1: let's put away the ontology example and say you want to reference a friend
14:23:00 <ericP> ... you want to reference your description of them
14:23:18 <ericP> TallTed: then you'd use a query service instead of following their ID
14:23:29 <ericP> gibsonf1: would be nice to have that spec'd
14:23:47 <ericP> TallTed: not sure what to spec but suggest an issue
14:24:23 <ericP> ssuggest an issue/I suggest opening an issue/
14:25:21 <ericP> acoburn: can i call this an "offset description" for supplementing an existing resource
14:25:24 <acoburn> Action: gibsonf1 to open a use case issue describing a mechanism to describe a resource that is located elsewhere
14:25:26 <gb> Created -> action #35 https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/issues/35
14:25:32 <acoburn> q?
14:25:38 <acoburn> ack next
14:26:26 <dmitriz> q+
14:26:49 <TallTed> q+ to note that "identity" is not usually definable by anyone other than the "identified" entity
14:27:03 <ericP> hadrian: do the identifiers we speak of denote entities or resources describing those entities
14:27:57 <dmitriz> I'm coming from a very particular place, when I say DIDs are URLs. to start with, WHATWG has long issued a statement that "URLs and URIs are the same thing."
14:27:59 <ericP> ... e.g. if a git repo (imperfect analogy, but...) is unique, we can refer to it regardless of its location
14:28:18 <ericP> ... (github, some gitlab...)
14:28:27 <acoburn> ack next
14:28:27 <ericP> ... this decouples us from the DNS
14:28:34 <acoburn> scribe+
14:29:27 <acoburn> ericP: this issue arose a lot in BioRDF because many groups wanted to redefine particular protiens/entities
14:29:46 <TallTed> s/BioRDF/bio2rdf/
14:29:57 <dmitriz> secondly, the 'did:key' example still supports the URL name. because, what's a URL? broadly, it's "you look at the protocol, before the first :, and perform the lookup according to its rules".  And did:key has a very specific procedure that allows you to fetch the key. (instead of looking on the internet, it looks in the URL itself, but that's still locating.)
14:30:04 <acoburn> ... not solving that problem caused problems requiring a lot of string matching
14:30:07 <acoburn> scribe-
14:30:08 <dmitriz> q-
14:30:14 <acoburn> ack next
14:30:44 <ericP> Jackson: a month or two ago, we had a similar conversation. reiterating:...
14:31:27 <ericP> ... .. just saying that resources have IDs is insufficient. need to have a MUST on some standard identifier
14:31:37 <pchampin> q+
14:31:56 <acoburn> ack next
14:31:57 <Zakim> TallTed, you wanted to note that "identity" is not usually definable by anyone other than the "identified" entity
14:32:12 <ericP> acoburn: following your point, that makes writing a test suite more tractable
14:32:52 <ericP> TallTed: UC&R usually don't include MUST/MAY (though SHALLs usually reflect as MUST in the spec)
14:33:07 <ericP> ... IDs are human constructs
14:33:43 <ericP> ... what you deference that memory space, you get back a value.
14:34:04 <acoburn> q?
14:34:09 <acoburn> ack next
14:34:15 <TallTed> s/IDs/"identities"/
14:34:20 <ericP> ... confusing because there's not typicaly a single value when you derference a URI but there is when you deref a memory location
14:34:44 <hadrian> q+
14:34:46 <ericP> pchampin: our charter rules new ID mechanisms out of scope
14:35:23 <hadrian> q-
14:35:24 <ericP> ... when Jackson uttered "MUST" i believe he as refering to the spec
14:36:08 <ericP> ... re ericP's proliferation of IDs, I think it's more than a confusion between the entity and the description.
14:36:11 <hadrian> q+
14:36:28 <ericP> ... it's "safer" to roll your own description
14:36:50 <ericP> ... a "locator" is anything for which we have a standard way to resolve
14:37:31 <acoburn> ack next
14:37:43 <TallTed> multiple identifiers for the same entity are not a problem. As long as they *are* the same entity, owl:sameAs is great. broaderThan, narrowerThan, etc. can help when they're not the *same* entity.
14:37:50 <ericP> ... I'd say that DOI URNs are names but current infrastructure makes them locators
14:38:11 <ericP> hadrian: +1 to not inventing new ID scheme
14:38:34 <pchampin> q+
14:38:40 <ericP> ... +1 to remembering use/mention distinction
14:38:56 <TallTed> I don't see anything in these use cases about divorcing from DNS
14:39:04 <ericP> ... but it's important to remember which IDs break when you lost control of a domain name
14:39:06 <acoburn> ack next
14:39:43 <hadrian> q+
14:39:53 <ericP> pchampin: re losing domain name, DID's are considered safer but people lose e.g. BitCoin IDs
14:40:00 <TallTed> DIDs are one option there. w3id.org is another pattern.
14:40:04 <ericP> ... every scheme has its vulnerability
14:40:45 <acoburn> ack next
14:40:49 <ericP> ... users will have to chose based on their use case. (we will make some choices for users)
14:41:13 <TallTed> q+
14:41:40 <ericP> hadrian: Q for pchampin: i understand that we don't want to lock ourselves into (any) scheme. is that true?
14:41:50 <acoburn> ack next
14:41:53 <ericP> pchampin: brutal agreement
14:42:23 <pchampin> +1 TallTed
14:42:57 <ericP> TallTed: at the same time we don't want to lock ourselves into a problematic but we can't design for the far future
14:43:38 <ericP> ... since we're designing for "Linked Web Storage", we can't through out http(s)
14:43:46 <acoburn> q?
14:43:51 <TallTed> s/through out/throw out/
14:44:57 <ericP> acoburn: good discussion; we'll have more discussions as we design for solving the reqs
14:46:04 <ericP> ... next: i'll send a link to a Google Form to the WG list (not to the public) so we can rank reqs 1 (important) to 5 (unimportant)
14:46:20 <ericP> ... we'll discuss the ones upon which there is NOT consensus
14:46:40 <ericP> ... please fill the form out this week
14:47:01 <ericP> ... this form won't set anything in stone but helps us rank/prioritize
14:47:38 <TallTed> you can `i/nearby text/topic: blah blah`
14:48:27 <bendm> q+
14:48:29 <pchampin> i|good discussion; we'll have more discussions|topic: Prioritization of requirements: How should we approach this?
14:48:34 <acoburn> ack next
14:49:29 <ericP> bendm: does anything prevent one from marking everything with a 1?
14:50:03 <pchampin> q+
14:50:37 <ericP> acoburn: true, but if everything is equally imporatnt, we haven't sufficiently clarified the reqs
14:51:03 <TallTed> q+
14:51:04 <ericP> bendm: suggest limiting folks to e.g. five 1s
14:51:09 <acoburn> ack next
14:51:17 <ericP> acoburn: good point. i'll add something
14:52:04 <ericP> pchampin: i'd say that 5s are different, e.g. out-of-scope
14:52:47 <acoburn> ack next
14:53:01 <ericP> ... i suggest thinking in terms of absolute (required, out-of-scope)
14:53:14 <ericP> TallTed: there are a lot of MVPs that don't interoperate
14:53:41 <ericP> ... dropbox, mbox, MS's thing... each intended to lock users into their tool
14:54:01 <pchampin> TallTed, agreed, "MVP" is not the best notion; the idea was really "minimal interop baseline" in my view
14:54:06 <ericP> ... we need to focus on the interop between 2 or more providers
14:55:18 <ericP> ... i can store stuff in Amazon as long as Amazon sells glacial storage for cheap, until my service runs up a big bill
14:55:56 <ericP> ... we need to target the enthusiast, allowing them to migrate to/from cloud services and their home server
14:56:18 <ericP> acoburn: nice framing of the interop goals
14:56:38 <ericP> [ADJOURNED]
14:56:51 <pchampin> RRSAgent, make minutes
14:56:53 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/09/08-lws-minutes.html pchampin
14:57:17 <acoburn> acoburn has left #lws
14:57:41 <pchampin> s|subtopic: https://www.w3.org/TR/2025/DNOTE-lws-ucs-20250908/#dfn-use-of-service-providers|subtopic: -> https://www.w3.org/TR/2025/DNOTE-lws-ucs-20250908/#dfn-use-of-service-providers Use of Service Providers
14:58:04 <pchampin> RRSAgent, make minutes
14:58:05 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/09/08-lws-minutes.html pchampin
15:30:27 <TallTed> TallTed has joined #lws
15:35:23 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/09/08-lws-minutes.html TallTed
15:36:05 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been acoburn, pchampin, gibsonf, bendm, eBremer, ericP, TallTed, jeswr, hadrian, ryey, Jackson, RazaN
15:36:07 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
15:36:08 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/09/08-lws-minutes.html Zakim
15:36:14 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, TallTed; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
15:36:14 <Zakim> Zakim has left #lws
15:36:21 <TallTed> RRSAgent, bye
15:36:21 <RRSAgent> I see 2 open action items saved in https://www.w3.org/2025/09/08-lws-actions.rdf :
15:36:21 <RRSAgent> ACTION: hadrian to open PR to simplify and clarify the "Use of Storage Providers" requirement [1]
15:36:21 <RRSAgent>   recorded in https://www.w3.org/2025/09/08-lws-irc#T14-14-32
15:36:21 <RRSAgent> ACTION: gibsonf1 to open a use case issue describing a mechanism to describe a resource that is located elsewhere [2]
15:36:21 <RRSAgent>   recorded in https://www.w3.org/2025/09/08-lws-irc#T14-25-24