13:55:43 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #lws
13:55:47 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2026/03/09-lws-irc
13:55:47 <gb> https://github.com/w3c-cg/threat-modeling/issues/16 -> Issue 16 Agenda: 2026-03-10 (by simoneonofri)
13:55:47 <Luke> Luke has joined #lws
13:56:10 <acoburn> acoburn has changed the topic to: Linked Web Storage WG - 9 March 2026 - https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/a19ab7dc-1753-433d-bac5-64e3ad8c0a43/20260309T100000/
13:56:20 <acoburn> zakim, start meeting
13:56:20 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
13:56:22 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), acoburn
13:56:33 <acoburn> meeting: Linked Web Storage
13:56:46 <acoburn> agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/a19ab7dc-1753-433d-bac5-64e3ad8c0a43/20260309T100000/#agenda
13:56:46 <agendabot> clear agenda
13:56:46 <agendabot> agenda+ Introduction and announcements
13:56:46 <agendabot> agenda+ Issue -> triage https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/issues
13:56:46 <agendabot> agenda+ Timeframe for FPWD
13:56:46 <agendabot> agenda+ Remaining priorities for WG: test suite, access requests, notifications, type index
13:56:49 <agendabot> agenda+ Web-CID -> Authentication Suite https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/96
13:56:52 <agendabot> agenda+ Former editors -> section https://w3c.github.io/lws-protocol/lws10-core/
13:56:52 <acoburn> chair: acoburn
13:56:55 <agendabot> agenda+ -> Container pagination https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/82  scope
13:57:19 <acoburn> rrsagent, make minutes
13:57:20 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/03/09-lws-minutes.html acoburn
13:57:45 <acoburn> previous meeting: https://www.w3.org/2026/03/02-lws-minutes.html
13:57:58 <acoburn> next meeting: https://www.w3.org/2026/03/16-lws-minutes.html
13:58:06 <acoburn> rrsagent, make minutes
13:58:07 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/03/09-lws-minutes.html acoburn
14:00:22 <acoburn> present+
14:00:27 <Luke> present+
14:00:56 <gibsonf1> gibsonf1 has joined #lws
14:01:01 <gibsonf1> present+
14:01:10 <TallTed> TallTed has joined #lws
14:01:22 <bendm> bendm has joined #lws
14:01:45 <laurens> laurens has joined #lws
14:01:47 <laurens> present+
14:01:54 <bendm> present+
14:01:54 <laurens> scribe: laurens
14:02:41 <pchampin> present+
14:03:48 <pchampin> yes, 2 more weeks; back to "normal" on 30 March (at least for us in Europe)
14:03:49 <dmitriz> dmitriz has joined #lws
14:04:10 <eBremer> eBremer has joined #lws
14:04:10 <acoburn> zakim, open agendum 1
14:04:10 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Introduction and announcements -- taken up [from agendabot]
14:04:19 <eBremer> present+
14:04:26 <TallTed> present+
14:04:36 <dmitriz> present+
14:04:41 <laurens> acoburn: Any announcements? Or changes in affiliation?
14:05:02 <acoburn> present+ jessew
14:05:12 <laurens> jeswr: We have a face-to-face meeting taking place on April 27th and 28th at the ODI Offices near Kings Place in London.
14:05:28 <laurens> ... We also have the Solid symposium on April 30th and May 1st.
14:05:39 <laurens> ... Finally, there is also a Solid hackathon that week.
14:06:11 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/03/09-lws-minutes.html TallTed
14:06:28 <laurens> acoburn: Jesse is encouraging everyone in the community to block out April 27th through May 1st.
14:06:38 <jeswr> jeswr has joined #lws
14:06:47 <acoburn> zakim, open agendum 2
14:06:47 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Issue -> triage https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/issues -- taken up [from agendabot]
14:07:03 <laurens> acoburn: There is one new issue to discuss.
14:07:24 <laurens> ... Issue #95 in the lws-protocol repository.
14:07:25 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/issues/95 -> Issue 95 Specify Container representation to be compound representation (by damooo)
14:07:49 <laurens> ... It asks a container to be specified as both a sever-managed and user-managed resource.
14:08:05 <laurens> ... I believe from the F2F that containers would be server managed data.
14:08:18 <laurens> ... I don't think we were going to specify it as being compound.
14:08:23 <gibsonf1> q+
14:08:29 <laurens> ... Is #95 out of-scope for LWS or not?
14:08:33 <acoburn> ack next
14:08:59 <laurens> gibsonf1: If a client makes an RDF request on a container would they receive everything?
14:09:17 <laurens> acoburn: Right now containers are defined as including information on all contained resources.
14:09:21 <jeswr> LWS in-person meeting (Location ODI Offices, Kings Place, Kings Cross, London): April 27 - April 28
14:09:21 <jeswr> ODI Hackathon (pre-registration at https://theodi.org/news-and-events/news/announcing-the-solid-symposium-2026/): April 27 (afternoon) - April 29
14:09:21 <jeswr> Solid Symposium (https://sosy2026.eu/): April 30 - May 1
14:09:36 <laurens> ... Let's say in addition you want to add a name and other data to the container.
14:09:51 <laurens> ... At present that would not go into the container resource itself but into an auxiliary resource.
14:10:18 <laurens> gibsonf1: So a standard GET on a container will not return basics about that resource?
14:10:41 <laurens> acoburn: Think of a container like a folder in a filesystem.
14:10:57 <laurens> ... When you perform a GET you receive a list in the body of the resources contained in that container.
14:11:10 <laurens> ... That is what we define today as part of the representation.
14:11:25 <laurens> gibsonf1: That is a real problem.
14:11:43 <laurens> ... If I perform a GET on a container, that returns a JSON with the content of the container.
14:12:01 <laurens> acoburn: Currently you get a JSON response with the container contents and minimal metadata.
14:12:12 <laurens> ... Additionally there is a linkset resource associated with the container.
14:12:24 <laurens> ... Which can contain user defined and server defined link relations.
14:12:51 <laurens> ... To e.g. auxiliary resources. So the linkset allows for arbitrary (with some constraints) links to other resources.
14:13:10 <laurens> gibsonf1: This breaks the Solid approach to getting RDF on a resource GET.
14:13:35 <laurens> ... In our case a container could be a system that contains other systems.
14:14:04 <laurens> acoburn: Currently we are only triaging this issue. So we should probably assign a "needs-discussion" label here.
14:14:35 <laurens> gibsonf1: There is an Accept that you send on the GET request.
14:14:41 <laurens> acoburn: That is part of HTTP.
14:15:01 <laurens> ... We require that a server support a specific mediatype (application/lws+json).
14:15:10 <laurens> ... A server may do content negotiation on that resource.
14:16:25 <acoburn> zakim, open agendum 3
14:16:25 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- Timeframe for FPWD -- taken up [from agendabot]
14:17:00 <laurens> acoburn: Typically specifications start with an editor's draft.
14:17:11 <laurens> ... And after some time you move into a first public working draft.
14:17:37 <laurens> ... It is a signal that (while still being a draft) it is a publication which begins a process
14:17:50 <laurens> ... of patent exclusion
14:18:23 <laurens> ... If there is IP in the draft exclusion requests can be made. This starts at the FPWD.
14:18:34 <laurens> ... This process takes a couple of months.
14:18:58 <laurens> ... Our charter expires in September, so we want to finish this patent exclusion process before that.
14:19:20 <laurens> ... We are probably going to need an extension anyway, but it would be good to move along to FPWD.
14:19:32 <laurens> pchampin: A first public working draft is still a draft.
14:19:45 <laurens> ... We shouldn't be shy or wait for the content of the specification to be more mature.
14:19:54 <laurens> ... Some groups publish an empty FPWD.
14:20:02 <laurens> ... Just to have a stake in the ground.
14:20:20 <laurens> ... We still need to improve a lot in the spec, but we should release early and often.
14:20:40 <laurens> ... It does not yet represent consensus of the WG other than consensus that we should put something out there.
14:21:00 <laurens> ... Our editor's draft is already visible today.
14:21:14 <laurens> ... But it does start this patent exclusion call.
14:22:10 <ryey> ryey has joined #lws
14:22:14 <ryey> present+
14:22:34 <laurens> acoburn: I have two resolutions ready, one on the core specification and one on the authentication suites.
14:22:38 <acoburn> PROPOSED: The LWS WG shall publish the FPWD of the core LWS specification
14:22:49 <laurens> +1
14:22:49 <Luke> +1
14:22:54 <pchampin> +1
14:22:54 <eBremer> +1
14:22:55 <acoburn> +1
14:23:00 <TallTed> +1
14:23:14 <dmitriz> +1
14:23:15 <ryey> +1
14:23:17 <gibsonf1> +1  (with small change to pagination pr)
14:23:51 <gibsonf1> Ahh, sorry +1
14:24:09 <laurens> acoburn: It looks like we have solid consensus
14:24:11 <acoburn> RESOLVED: The LWS WG shall publish the FPWD of the core LWS specification
14:24:13 <gb> https://github.com/w3c-cg/threat-modeling/issues/16 -> Issue 16 Agenda: 2026-03-10 (by simoneonofri)
14:24:39 <acoburn> PROPOSED: The LWS WG shall publish the various authentication suites as FPWD documents
14:24:48 <gibsonf1> +1
14:24:49 <laurens> +1
14:24:52 <Luke> +1
14:24:57 <acoburn> +1
14:24:57 <pchampin> +1
14:25:03 <TallTed> +1
14:25:04 <bendm> +1
14:25:34 <acoburn> Core specification: https://w3c.github.io/lws-protocol/lws10-core/
14:25:49 <acoburn> OpenID: https://w3c.github.io/lws-protocol/lws10-authn-openid/
14:25:59 <acoburn> SAML: https://w3c.github.io/lws-protocol/lws10-authn-saml/
14:26:08 <acoburn> SSI-CID: https://w3c.github.io/lws-protocol/lws10-authn-ssi-cid
14:26:17 <acoburn> SSI-DID-KEY: https://w3c.github.io/lws-protocol/lws10-authn-ssi-did-key
14:27:19 <ryey> +1 (after fixing some seeming editorial issues?)
14:27:19 <laurens> acoburn: We also have consensus for the authentication suites.
14:27:41 <eBremer> +!
14:27:44 <eBremer> +1
14:28:23 <acoburn> PROPOSED: The LWS WG shall publish the various authentication suites as FPWD documents: https://w3c.github.io/lws-protocol/lws10-authn-openid/, https://w3c.github.io/lws-protocol/lws10-authn-saml/, https://w3c.github.io/lws-protocol/lws10-authn-ssi-cid, https://w3c.github.io/lws-protocol/lws10-authn-ssi-did-key
14:28:52 <acoburn> RESOLVED: The LWS WG shall publish the various authentication suites as FPWD documents: https://w3c.github.io/lws-protocol/lws10-authn-openid/, https://w3c.github.io/lws-protocol/lws10-authn-saml/, https://w3c.github.io/lws-protocol/lws10-authn-ssi-cid, https://w3c.github.io/lws-protocol/lws10-authn-ssi-did-key
14:29:56 <acoburn> zakim, open agendum 4
14:29:56 <Zakim> agendum 4 -- Remaining priorities for WG: test suite, access requests, notifications, type index -- taken up [from agendabot]
14:30:19 <laurens> acoburn: We have about 6 months left in the charter.
14:30:27 <laurens> ... We are very much interested in renewing the charter.
14:30:46 <laurens> ... We need to set priorities for both the next six months and think about what comes after.
14:31:01 <laurens> ... Probably after those six months the focus will be on implementation.
14:31:14 <laurens> ... But by September the contents of LWS should be mostly complete.
14:31:40 <laurens> ... We have a couple of things that haven't been taken up: test suite, access requests & grants, notifications, server-managed type index.
14:31:55 <laurens> ... Some other issues still need attention like pagination, multiple containment, ...
14:32:03 <laurens> ... But the foundation is already there for containment.
14:32:15 <laurens> ... However on these topics we haven't started working yet.
14:32:34 <laurens> ... Are these still the right priorities? Are we missing anything?
14:32:53 <ryey> q+
14:32:59 <acoburn> ack next
14:33:11 <gibsonf1> +1 on type search (and I can write a proposal up for it)
14:33:27 <laurens> ryey: For test suites, do we test the server implementation? Or also the client?
14:33:52 <laurens> acoburn: We are primarily specifying a protocol.
14:34:06 <laurens> ... Any entity for which we're specifying behaviour we would want to test.
14:34:23 <dmitriz> do we have a use case defined for type index?
14:34:29 <laurens> ... We're primarily focusing on server behaviour.
14:34:47 <laurens> ... So that will be our focus in testing. And will give the greatest benefit.
14:35:02 <laurens> ... But we could also have tests for client behaviour. But that might be more complicated.
14:35:51 <TallTed> "conformant by assertion"
14:36:22 <laurens> acoburn: That's the test suite.
14:36:35 <laurens> ... I see gibsonf1 giving a +1 on type index.
14:36:40 <bendm> q+ to state access request & grant is authorization server, and may be too far for the timeline, notifications seems manageable in the timeline, for server-managed type index I would suggest an extensible system (and happy to read gibsonf1's suggestion)
14:36:45 <laurens> ... The main use case is data discovery.
14:37:02 <laurens> ... I don't have a specific reference, but we do have cases for that.
14:37:06 <acoburn> ack next
14:37:07 <Zakim> bendm, you wanted to state access request & grant is authorization server, and may be too far for the timeline, notifications seems manageable in the timeline, for server-managed
14:37:07 <Zakim> ... type index I would suggest an extensible system (and happy to read gibsonf1's suggestion)
14:37:23 <laurens> bendm: Test suite is something we must do.
14:37:42 <laurens> ... Access request & grant is related to authz service so farther from storage and thus less of a priority.
14:37:50 <laurens> ... Notifications seems manageable in the timeline.
14:38:00 <laurens> ... A server-managed type index will be hard to agree upon.
14:38:04 <gibsonf1> q+
14:38:11 <acoburn> ack next
14:38:11 <laurens> ... So an extensible system will be needed.
14:38:28 <laurens> gibsonf1: On the type index, I'm not thinking of it as a way of indexing things
14:38:38 <laurens> ... but as a search on types.
14:38:52 <laurens> ... A request would be one or more types which can be intersected.
14:39:15 <laurens> acoburn: That would be great. As soon as we have a proposal we can discuss further.
14:39:31 <laurens> ... We will have to define the scope and requirements as a group.
14:40:07 <laurens> ... Please let one of the chairs know as soon as you have something ready.
14:40:19 <laurens> ... With respect to access requests & grants Inrupt is very interested.
14:40:34 <laurens> ... I could probably bring something to the group by next week.
14:40:41 <laurens> q+
14:41:00 <ryey> q+ to ask about "type" in type index and lack of RDF-native support
14:41:09 <acoburn> ack next
14:41:18 <bendm> q+ to say we're also very interested in access request and grants, we can also bring something to collaborate on, I'm just wondering how large of a specification that will add to v1.0
14:42:02 <acoburn> ack next
14:42:03 <Zakim> ryey, you wanted to ask about "type" in type index and lack of RDF-native support
14:42:07 <Luke> q+ additional grants and request ack
14:42:11 <laurens> laurens: Access Requests & grants is very important still and resolves a severe lack of the solid protoocl.
14:42:22 <laurens> ryey: I would agree on the access requests & grants.
14:42:41 <laurens> ... We are talking about type indexes, but as we've dropped the RDF support
14:42:49 <laurens> ... What do we mean by the type of a resource?
14:43:09 <laurens> acoburn: This would probably be part of the scope of type indexes.
14:43:22 <laurens> ... In an LWS storage there will be both RDF and non-RDF resources.
14:43:32 <laurens> How can we support as broad a category as possible.
14:43:43 <laurens> ... Types could be represented as part of the linkset.
14:44:00 <laurens> q?
14:44:04 <acoburn> ack next
14:44:05 <Zakim> bendm, you wanted to say we're also very interested in access request and grants, we can also bring something to collaborate on, I'm just wondering how large of a specification
14:44:05 <Zakim> ... that will add to v1.0
14:44:17 <laurens> bendm: Access requests & grants are super important.
14:44:28 <laurens> ... But it will be a new and big thing to add to the specification.
14:44:39 <laurens> ... So the question is how far we want to go.
14:44:51 <laurens> ... I might be wrong and it might be more straightforward.
14:45:09 <laurens> ... I just wonder if it wouldn't be better to scope ourselves.
14:45:19 <laurens> acoburn: I have tried to keep this as minimal as possible.
14:45:35 <laurens> ... So the goal for access requests & grants would be to be as lightweight as we can.
14:45:56 <laurens> bendm: I do think notifications are very important, as it allows for extensibility.
14:46:02 <acoburn> q?
14:46:48 <uvdsl> uvdsl has joined #lws
14:47:08 <laurens> luke: The access requests & grants seems to be one of the most user unfriendly things that is in place right now.
14:47:17 <laurens> ... So it is important in terms of adoption to add this.
14:47:43 <laurens> acoburn: I'm not hearing anything new.
14:47:56 <laurens> ... Only concerns on access requests & grants and their complexity.
14:48:14 <laurens> ... We need to make sure there are individuals in the WG actively working on these items.
14:48:14 <uvdsl> present+
14:48:31 <uvdsl> (sorry for joining just before the end :) )
14:48:37 <laurens> ... If anyone else wants to collaborate on access requests, let me know.
14:48:58 <laurens> ... gibsonf1 has indicated interest in working on type indexes. If anyone else is interested, get in touch.
14:49:03 <laurens> ... That leaves test suite and notifications.
14:49:22 <dmitriz> q+ to comment on test suite
14:49:28 <acoburn> ack next
14:49:29 <Zakim> dmitriz, you wanted to comment on test suite
14:49:29 <laurens> ... I am happy to contribute to notifications, but would be happy to have some assistance.
14:49:40 <laurens> dmitriz: The test suite is a special case
14:49:58 <laurens> ... The W3C policy tends to strongly encourage multiple interoperable implementations.
14:50:11 <laurens> ... So it is an existential item to get anything out of the door.
14:50:26 <gibsonf1> q+
14:50:54 <uvdsl> rrsagent, make minutes
14:50:56 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/03/09-lws-minutes.html uvdsl
14:51:06 <laurens> jeswr: There is a grant from NLNet
14:51:14 <laurens> ... That has been granted to ODI for a test suite.
14:51:21 <laurens> ... That will be worked on.
14:51:48 <laurens> acoburn: It would be wonderful if we have some collaboration on writing that test suite.
14:52:10 <acoburn> ack next
14:52:21 <laurens> gibsonf1: There is a solid test suite group currently active
14:52:28 <laurens> ... Wouldn't it make sense to bring them in.
14:52:40 <laurens> acoburn: They have a test suite written using Karate
14:52:49 <laurens> ... We could build on there work, so that would be great.
14:52:57 <acoburn> zakim, open agendum 5
14:52:57 <Zakim> agendum 5 -- Web-CID -> Authentication Suite https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/96 -- taken up [from agendabot]
14:53:27 <laurens> acoburn: This PR proposes another authentication suite.
14:53:39 <laurens> ... uvdsl could you provide an introduction to this PR.
14:53:46 <laurens> ... So that we can discuss and vote on it next week.
14:54:18 <laurens> uvdsl: This proposal is currently on agent identification, not authentication.
14:54:26 <laurens> ... As identification is a fundamental component of authentication.
14:54:28 <uvdsl> https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/issues/57
14:54:28 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/issues/57 -> https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/issues/57
14:54:48 <laurens> ... Following #57 I was tasked to define a conformance profile on agent identification.
14:54:49 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/issues/57 -> Issue 57 Agent Identification (by uvdsl) [ready-for-pr]
14:55:01 <uvdsl> https://uvdsl.solid.aifb.kit.edu/spec/lws/ident-cid-web/draft.html
14:55:03 <laurens> ... My approach is to define the mechanism for dereferencing a CID by a client.
14:55:23 <laurens> ... The specification should be implementable and lean.
14:55:34 <laurens> ... Such that it can be used in the existing authentication suites.
14:56:11 <laurens> acoburn: I encourage everyone to look at this PR.
14:56:40 <laurens> ... With that we are out of time.
14:56:44 <laurens> ... Any last thoughts?
14:57:00 <laurens> zakim, draft minutes
14:57:00 <Zakim> I don't understand 'draft minutes', laurens
14:57:32 <acoburn> rrsagent, draft minutes
14:57:33 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/03/09-lws-minutes.html acoburn
14:58:29 <acoburn> present+ jeswr
14:58:46 <acoburn> rrsagent, make minutes
14:58:47 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/03/09-lws-minutes.html acoburn
14:59:33 <acoburn> acoburn has left #lws
21:37:30 <TallTed> Zakim, end meeting
21:37:30 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been acoburn, eBremer, AZ, laurens, gibsonf, pchampin, uvdsl, Luke, RazaN, bendm, ryey, TallTed, dmitriz, jessew, !, jeswr
21:37:33 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
21:37:34 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/03/09-lws-minutes.html Zakim
21:37:40 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, TallTed; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
21:37:40 <Zakim> Zakim has left #lws
21:37:46 <TallTed> RRSAgent, bye
21:37:46 <RRSAgent> I see no action items