14:49:51 RRSAgent has joined #lws 14:49:56 logging to https://www.w3.org/2026/01/26-lws-irc 14:50:41 zakim, start meeting 14:50:41 RRSAgent, make logs Public 14:50:43 please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), acoburn 14:50:46 agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/a19ab7dc-1753-433d-bac5-64e3ad8c0a43/20260126T100000/#agenda 14:50:47 clear agenda 14:50:47 agenda+ Introductions & Announcements 14:50:47 agenda+ -> Open PRs https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pulls 14:50:47 agenda+ Triage -> open issues https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/issues 14:50:48 agenda+ WG Note on compatibility with Solid and/or migration 14:50:50 agenda+ LWS Containers 14:50:53 meeting: Linked Web Storage 14:51:54 rrsagent, make minutes 14:51:56 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/01/26-lws-minutes.html acoburn 14:52:53 previous meeting: https://www.w3.org/2026/01/19-lws-minutes.html 14:53:17 next meeting: https://www.w3.org/2026/02/02-lws-minutes.html 14:53:24 rrsagent, make minutes 14:53:26 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/01/26-lws-minutes.html acoburn 14:53:59 chair: acoburn 14:55:59 TallTed has joined #lws 14:59:12 Luke has joined #lws 15:01:02 gibsonf1 has joined #lws 15:01:06 eBremer has joined #lws 15:01:09 uvdsl has joined #lws 15:01:12 present+ 15:01:19 present+ 15:01:22 present+ 15:01:32 present+ 15:01:34 present+ 15:01:53 bendm has joined #lws 15:01:57 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/01/26-lws-minutes.html TallTed 15:02:21 present+ 15:02:26 present+ 15:03:25 ryey has joined #lws 15:03:36 present+ 15:04:10 jeswr has joined #lws 15:04:24 present+ 15:04:33 scribe+ 15:04:39 zakim, open agendum 1 15:04:39 agendum 1 -- Introductions & Announcements -- taken up [from agendabot] 15:04:41 laurens has joined #lws 15:05:17 acoburn: Any Announcements, Introductions, ...? 15:05:26 ...: there being none, let's move on 15:05:30 zakim, open agendum 2 15:05:30 agendum 2 -- -> Open PRs https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pulls -- taken up [from agendabot] 15:05:55 dmitriz has joined #lws 15:06:09 acoburn: Let's make sure to move through the work on GitHub, not spending too much time, just making sure we are on the same page 15:06:26 ... there are a couple of PRs, that I opened, not going into details 15:06:47 ... some errors in spec documents, thanks elf-pavlik! 15:07:06 ... and some terminology changes, mostly copy paste 15:07:25 ... except the last part of #56 where I provide examples 15:07:28 https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/56 -> Pull Request 56 Change 'end-user credential' to 'authentication credential' (by acoburn) 15:07:37 ... please comment if you have anything to add 15:08:06 ... then there is #55 about informative references 15:08:07 https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/55 -> Pull Request 55 Update unresolvable informative references (by acoburn) 15:08:35 ... that are not resolvable. I do not have a strong opinion how we solve this issue. 15:08:38 ryey2 has joined #lws 15:08:44 ... please comment if you have an opinion 15:08:52 q? 15:08:56 ... that's all on the open PRs. 15:09:04 ryey2 has left #lws 15:09:06 ... any feedback on that now? 15:09:14 ... there being none, let's move on 15:09:14 zakim, open agendum 3 15:09:14 agendum 3 -- Triage -> open issues https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/issues -- taken up [from agendabot] 15:09:35 acoburn: I'd like to timebox this to 10 minutes at MAX 15:09:52 ... just we know which issues exist 15:10:31 ... I'd like to group the issues into "needs-discussion", "we had discussion and is now ready for PR", "postponed", and "considered out-of-scope" 15:10:56 ... if there is some ACTION that is required, I'd like to figure out who should take action on what. 15:11:26 ... first, #12, where we quickly moved on - I am unsure whether there is much discussion required here 15:11:27 https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/issues/12 -> Issue 12 Include Solid User Stories and various UCRs into LWS UCR (by CxRes) 15:11:38 ... rather, is anyone willing to take action and move this issue forward? 15:11:53 q+ 15:11:53 q+ 15:11:53 ack next 15:12:58 bendm: I think we should investigate to see if anything is not covered already. I am not sure if anyone from the Solid CG (or closer linked to the CG) who might have a better view on this? 15:13:19 ... if not, I could take a look, although I do not follow the CG that much 15:14:03 acoburn: Thanks, bendm, if you could take a look into how the CG UCRs are reflected in the WG UCRs, that be great. 15:14:13 q- 15:15:01 acoburn: #18, on prior art, jeswr, do you want to move this forward? Is this relevant as an open issue, or would this better be wrapped up in some way (wiki?) 15:15:02 https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/issues/18 -> Issue 18 Prior Art Collection (by jeswr) 15:15:34 jeswr: I propose closing the issue - the wiki is not really maintained, and I have not been able to follow as closely. 15:15:57 acoburn: Alright, I'll comment right now, and if no objects arise until the end of the week, we' 15:16:00 https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/31 -> Pull Request 31 prior-art: group based access policies (by elf-pavlik) 15:16:04 ... we'll close it 15:16:28 acoburn: #24, is there more discussion to be have? 15:16:28 https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/issues/24 -> Issue 24 Reasons for separate rest bindings (by jeswr) 15:17:19 ericP has joined #lws 15:17:38 uvdsl: I'd like to request a proper summary of the discussion before closing the issue 15:18:10 acoburn: if someone could jump in and assign themselves, that would be great. If we do not have someone by next week, we'll pick someone. 15:18:34 ... on #27, there is alot of ground to cover here, let's discuss this more 15:18:37 https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/issues/27 -> Issue 27 Terminology: Resource Manager / Resource Controller / ... (by uvdsl) [needs-discussion] 15:18:48 present+ 15:19:42 ... on #28, mostly on terminology? uvdsl? 15:19:43 https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/issues/28 -> Issue 28 Resource Identification (by uvdsl) 15:20:19 uvdsl: yes, but tied to #24, regarding the minimum to implement for the transport protocol of the LWS protocol 15:20:36 acoburn: I'll label it as needs discussion 15:20:42 zakim, open agendum 4 15:20:42 agendum 4 -- WG Note on compatibility with Solid and/or migration -- taken up [from agendabot] 15:20:46 ... this concludes 10 minutes of triage 15:21:18 acoburn: there has been questions on compatibility with Solid and migration paths for Solid 15:21:36 ... I believe there would be value in documenting such things in a group note 15:21:53 ... the group note does not require the rigor as other documents 15:22:13 ... I'd like to propose that we do work on that 15:22:27 ... but we would need someone or multiple people to work on this 15:22:31 ... so question: 15:23:02 PROPOSAL: Should the LWS WG add a work item for creating a WG Note on compatibility with Solid and migration from Solid 15:23:24 -0 15:23:50 +1 15:23:50 +1 15:23:56 +1 15:23:58 +1 15:23:59 +1 15:24:00 +.5 15:24:12 +.5 (Maybe Solid side could do this?) 15:24:13 +0.5 indeed in collab with Solid CG 15:24:17 +.5 15:24:39 +0 15:24:44 +0 15:25:23 RESOLVED: Should the LWS WG add a work item for creating a WG Note on compatibility with Solid and migration from Solid 15:25:29 q+ 15:25:34 ack next 15:25:45 acoburn: General feedback is positive, collaboration with CG seems good, not asking for volunteers right now 15:26:09 SolidCG cannot produce a NOTE, only a REPORT 15:26:19 ericP: Wondering whether those who +1 have a strong opinion on whether the Note is published is WG vs CG? 15:27:22 uh oh... zoom dropped... maybe IRC did too? 15:27:24 ... the reason I am asking is because the CG specs can be more of a moving target; we are required to lock something down and finish. 15:27:41 +1 on published from Solid CG side as its that community that would be interested in LWS relation 15:27:44 ... so, maybe it would be easier for the CG to produce such a document 15:28:09 +1 for Solid CG, but for sure in collaboration with LWS WG 15:28:09 acoburn: I think it would be great if the CG would take that - but we could support that 15:28:24 ericP: right, we could help, we could even provide text 15:28:47 pchampin: I think that it would be desireable that this Note comes from the WG 15:28:57 ... because we ARE diverging from the current state of Solid 15:29:16 ... but we are also supposed to maintain a certain continuity 15:29:22 s/uh oh... zoom dropped... maybe IRC did too?// 15:29:39 ... I find it a bit weaker to let the CG come up with it 15:29:50 ... just because we do not have to 15:30:07 acoburn: I'd like to finish up this agendum 15:30:18 ... please, do consider this, and we'll discuss it next week 15:30:34 ... moving on 15:30:45 zakim, open agendum 5 15:30:45 agendum 5 -- LWS Containers -- taken up [from agendabot] 15:30:47 https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vY-tlbM96Vuf0_SVH1Xy1NzCaZ_MnlOOm-lvr1EHgt8/edit?usp=sharing 15:31:28 laurens: for the last couple of weeks, I have been working on a draft on how containers might work in LWS, based on the WG meeting in Gent. 15:31:35 ... ** shares screen ** 15:32:02 ... this is still a draft, much work to be done to finalize, open to any comments. This is an invitation 15:32:15 ... we will need a couple of iterations, before we can PR this 15:32:41 ... I'll walk you through and highlight the important parts, especially where this diverges from Solid/LDP 15:32:51 ... notably, containment in multiple containers 15:33:03 ... wondering whether implementers will actually care 15:33:17 ... then, there is a definition of terminology in here 15:33:31 ... pchampin also pointed out a discussion on the notion of a root container 15:33:49 ... gibsonf1 also opened a GitHub issue on this 15:33:57 ... so we need to discuss this 15:34:39 ... then, LWS resources are a subset of information resources (WEBARCH) that are stored on a LWS-compliant storage 15:34:58 ... ** continues running through definitions too fast to scribe ** 15:35:22 ... multiple containment entails potential problems that we need to consider 15:35:31 q? 15:35:39 ... link-set notion is important to this concept 15:35:50 ... if there are questions, please let me know 15:36:00 https://github.com/mnot/I-D/issues/39 -> CLOSED Issue 39 link relations for RDF (by dret) [rfc5988bis] 15:36:09 ... containment relations are materialised on containers and on the resources itself. 15:36:30 ... each resource's linkset must include a link to the containers it is part is 15:36:32 +q to ask about Storage itself as a container with having top level resources of potentially both "root" containers and root non-container resources 15:36:32 q+ 15:37:11 ... containment link headers are also specified, supporting multiple containers 15:37:38 ack next 15:37:39 gibsonf, you wanted to ask about Storage itself as a container with having top level resources of potentially both "root" containers and root non-container resources 15:37:43 ... there are also some integrity requirements on containment relations, especially regarding relation 15:38:09 gibsonf1: On the multiple containment, as an implementer, we won't implement that. It is fine to have as an optional feature 15:38:30 ... the main point, again, is the storage itself acting as a root container 15:39:02 ... for example, you could have an "outside IRI" like foaf:Person, this could live in the root container without being contained 15:39:25 ... so you could have one or more root container, and you could also have multiple root resources 15:39:37 laurens: I can follow for the containers but for the resources? 15:40:34 gibsonf1: The way to think about this is -- at least in our implementation -- there is hierarchy within the storage but there are also resources that do not belong within the hierarchy. 15:40:38 ack next 15:41:19 q+ 15:41:33 ack next 15:42:00 uvdsl: Just as input, did you look on DCAT DatasetSeries for the multiple containments? 15:42:56 ericP: In DCAT, this is absolutely possible 15:43:00 q? 15:43:40 laurens: in the face-to-face meeting, we defined this as desirable, but we will see how this plays out 15:43:48 present+ 15:44:08 ... continuing: resource identification 15:44:20 ... discussing slash semantics 15:44:26 +1 on optional slash semantics 15:44:41 ... we should not normatively disallow this 15:45:20 ... as it stands, having access to a container, allows for reading (seeing) the URIs contained, but we will need more clarification on the other actions 15:46:06 ... container representation. It is a JSON-LD representation, with an LWS JSON-LD context 15:46:10 ... optional aspects include total items count 15:46:34 ... there is more work to be done here 15:47:18 ... important: allow for pagination on container representations 15:47:27 +1 to ask about pagination 15:47:54 ... in Solid this was not straight forward 15:48:07 ... but in LWS we want to support this including limit and offset 15:49:33 gibsonf1: On pagination, looks like you are following the LDP approach, which I find unimplementable and complex - but there is a pagination approach for everything: you have a start point and then you specify the amount. 15:49:45 `pagination including limit and offset` requires stuff atop HTTP, which only lets you use byte-count for limit and offset. 15:49:57 ... I'd like to propose to go with most simple solution 15:50:08 laurens: there is no client-defined pagination 15:50:23 ... so servers decide how this works 15:50:40 ... servers just provide a `next`, `first` and `last` 15:50:47 gibsonf1: well this is complex 15:50:50 q+ 15:51:02 ... a client just could give one IRI and then go from there 15:51:34 acoburn: this is just an overview, detailed conversations are welcome in the issues or similar 15:51:52 gibsonf1: I'd love to have pagination as a separate topic then 15:52:06 laurens: Please do leave a comment on this 15:52:07 ack next 15:52:54 pchampin: I wanted to point out what I think is a misunderstanding: This proposal does not mandate HOW a server is doing pagination, only requiring what links to provide like `next`. 15:53:19 ... `last` may be too much to ask from a server, depending on the chosen approach - similar to what gibsonf1 mentioned 15:53:33 +1 on the challenges with a "last" link 15:53:48 laurens: moving on, there was discussion around resource creation using POST vs PUT 15:54:29 ... POST using `slug` header to suggest a name, but servers must respond with a 201 CREATED including a Location header with the IRI of the newly created resource 15:55:01 ... regardless of them taking the suggestion or ignoring it 15:55:21 ... more complex: adding existing resources to containers (multiple containment) 15:55:48 ... a new link relation is added to a linkset, using PATCH or PUT 15:56:12 ... removing, similarly, deleting the link from the linkset 15:56:18 q+ 15:57:10 ... deleting a container, then the semantics could be defined, more discussion required 15:57:33 ack next 15:58:03 uvdsl: resources and containers have link sets? 15:58:58 in the current proposal, the container->item relation is in the *representation* of the container, not in its linkset 15:59:03 laurens: both have link sets 15:59:13 acoburn: thank you laurens, looking forward to the conversation 15:59:21 Nice work laurens 15:59:26 RRSAgent, make minutes 15:59:28 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/01/26-lws-minutes.html pchampin 15:59:37 pchampin, thanks! that clears it up! 16:02:39 i|first, #12, where|subtopic: w3c/lws-protocol#12 Include Solid User Stories and various UCRs into LWS UCR (by CxRes) 16:03:07 i|on prior art, jeswr|subtopic: w3c/lws-protocol#18 Prior Art Collection (by jeswr) 16:03:32 i|#24, is there more discussion|w3c/lws-protocol#24 Reasons for separate rest bindings (by jeswr) 16:04:31 i|w3c/lws-protocol#24 Reasons for separate rest bindings (by jeswr)|subtopic: w3c/lws-protocol#24 Reasons for separate rest bindings (by jeswr) 16:04:41 s|w3c/lws-protocol#24 Reasons for separate rest bindings (by jeswr)| 16:05:08 i|on #27, there is alot|subtopic: w3c/lws-protocol#27 Terminology: Resource Manager / Resource Controller / ... (by uvdsl) 16:05:41 i|on #28, mostly on|subtopic: w3c/lws-protocol#28 Resource Identification (by uvdsl) 16:05:47 RRSAgent, make minutes 16:05:48 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/01/26-lws-minutes.html pchampin 16:08:48 s|https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/issues/12 -> Issue 12 Include Solid User Stories and various UCRs into LWS UCR (by CxRes)| 16:08:51 RRSAgent, make minutes 16:08:52 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/01/26-lws-minutes.html pchampin 16:09:17 s|https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/issues/18 -> Issue 18 Prior Art Collection (by jeswr)| 16:09:33 s|https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/31 -> Pull Request 31 prior-art: group based access policies (by elf-pavlik)| 16:09:48 s|https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/issues/24 -> Issue 24 Reasons for separate rest bindings (by jeswr)| 16:10:07 s|https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/issues/27 -> Issue 27 Terminology: Resource Manager / Resource Controller / ... (by uvdsl) [needs-discussion]| 16:10:18 s|https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/issues/28 -> Issue 28 Resource Identification (by uvdsl)| 16:10:39 RRSAgent, make minutes 16:10:40 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/01/26-lws-minutes.html pchampin 16:11:12 present+ laurens 16:11:14 RRSAgent, make minutes 16:11:15 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/01/26-lws-minutes.html pchampin 16:11:33 m2gbot has joined #lws 16:11:43 m2gbot, link issues with transcript 16:11:44 comment created: https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/56#issuecomment-3800416243 16:11:45 comment created: https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/issues/12#issuecomment-3800416345 16:11:45 comment already there: https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/issues/12#issuecomment-3800416345 16:11:47 comment created: https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/issues/18#issuecomment-3800416495 16:11:47 comment already there: https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/issues/18#issuecomment-3800416495 16:11:49 comment created: https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/issues/24#issuecomment-3800416651 16:11:50 comment already there: https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/issues/24#issuecomment-3800416651 16:11:51 comment created: https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/issues/27#issuecomment-3800416825 16:11:51 comment already there: https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/issues/27#issuecomment-3800416825 16:11:53 comment created: https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/issues/28#issuecomment-3800417012 16:11:53 comment already there: https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/issues/28#issuecomment-3800417012 16:27:41 acoburn has left #lws 20:26:08 dmitriz has joined #lws 23:47:26 dmitriz has joined #lws