13:58:10 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #lws
13:58:15 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2026/03/16-lws-irc
13:58:15 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #lws
13:58:23 <acoburn> zakim, start meeting
13:58:24 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
13:58:26 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), acoburn
13:58:36 <acoburn> meeting: Linked Web Storage
13:58:47 <acoburn> agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/a19ab7dc-1753-433d-bac5-64e3ad8c0a43/20260316T100000/#agenda
13:58:48 <agendabot> clear agenda
13:58:48 <agendabot> agenda+ Introductions and announcements
13:58:48 <agendabot> agenda+ -> Issue triage https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/issues
13:58:48 <agendabot> agenda+ Former Editors -> section https://w3c.github.io/lws-protocol/lws10-core/
13:58:49 <agendabot> agenda+ Access Requests status and open questions
13:58:51 <laurens> laurens has joined #lws
13:58:55 <agendabot> agenda+ Status of other core work items: test suite, notifications, type index, vocabularies
13:58:56 <agendabot> agenda+ Status of ancillary work items: solid migration, use cases & requirements
13:58:59 <agendabot> agenda+ WebID-CID document -> proposal https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/96
13:59:03 <acoburn> rrsagent, make minutes
13:59:05 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/03/16-lws-minutes.html acoburn
13:59:23 <eBremer> eBremer has joined #lws
13:59:25 <gibsonf1> gibsonf1 has joined #lws
13:59:40 <Wonsuk> present+
13:59:49 <laurens> present+
13:59:51 <acoburn> present+
13:59:51 <laurens> chair: laurens
14:00:28 <gibsonf1> present+
14:00:30 <acoburn> previous meeting: https://www.w3.org/2026/03/09-lws-minutes.html
14:00:32 <elf-pavlik> elf-pavlik has joined #lws
14:00:47 <acoburn> next meeting: https://www.w3.org/2026/03/23-lws-minutes.html
14:00:53 <bendm> bendm has joined #lws
14:01:03 <acoburn> rrsagent, make minutes
14:01:05 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/03/16-lws-minutes.html acoburn
14:01:11 <eBremer> present+
14:01:38 <bendm> present+
14:01:41 <TallTed> present+
14:02:55 <laurens> scribe: bendm
14:02:55 <Luke> Luke has joined #lws
14:02:56 <bendm> scribe+ bendm
14:04:23 <Luke> present+
14:05:14 <laurens> zakim, take up next agendum
14:05:14 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Introductions and announcements -- taken up [from agendabot]
14:05:21 <pchampin> present+
14:05:41 <laurens> zakim, take up next agendum
14:05:41 <Zakim> agendum 1 was just opened, laurens
14:05:42 <bendm> [no announcements]
14:05:58 <laurens> zakim, open agendum 2
14:05:58 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- -> Issue triage https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/issues -- taken up [from agendabot]
14:06:22 <bendm> laurens: one new opened issue #97
14:06:25 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/issues/97 -> Issue 97 Right approach to mark some likely editorial issues of the docs? (by renyuneyun)
14:06:46 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/03/16-lws-minutes.html TallTed
14:07:05 <bendm> acoburn: we don't need to to much on this, let's propose-closed
14:07:09 <bendm> laurens: yes, good
14:07:20 <dmitriz> dmitriz has joined #lws
14:07:23 <acoburn> s/to to/to do/
14:07:25 <laurens> zakim, open agendum 3
14:07:25 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- Former Editors -> section https://w3c.github.io/lws-protocol/lws10-core/ -- taken up [from agendabot]
14:07:56 <bendm> laurens: currently, we mention several former editors of the Solid protocol in the LWS core spec
14:08:05 <bendm> ... but we have more input documents, e.g. Fedora protocol
14:08:19 <TallTed> q+
14:08:29 <bendm> ... so that's currently strange, also inconsistent with, e.g. VC data model v2.0
14:08:49 <bendm> ... I suggest to restructure that part to only include the editors and authors to the current protocol text
14:08:59 <bendm> ... and move former editors in acknowledgements section
14:09:09 <bendm> ... that's consistent with most other W3C docs
14:09:15 <TallTed> +1 acks section for contributors via input documents
14:09:23 <TallTed> q-
14:09:32 <bendm> ... so we can also acknowledge the solid CG and Fedora CG
14:09:57 <TallTed> q+
14:10:00 <bendm> ... I would like someone to do this restructuring, any thoughts?
14:10:03 <laurens> ack TallTed
14:10:11 <dmitriz> +1 to restructuring
14:10:29 <bendm> TallTed: yes, contributors to input docs don't belong in the former editors structure
14:10:32 <acoburn> +1 to restructuring
14:10:42 <eBremer> +1 to restructuring
14:10:57 <bendm> ... we could also leave it to referring to the input documents themselves
14:10:57 <eBremer> I'll do it
14:11:00 <pchampin> +1 to restructing
14:11:26 <Wonsuk> +1 to restructuring
14:11:31 <bendm> acoburn: this is a pretty easy pull request, so if you'd like to contribute, this is a pretty simple way to do that
14:11:37 <dmitriz> I'm happy to volunteer
14:11:44 <dmitriz> to make a PR
14:11:58 <bendm> laurens: dmitriz, you're very welcome to make a PR
14:12:07 <laurens> zakim, open agendum 4
14:12:07 <Zakim> agendum 4 -- Access Requests status and open questions -- taken up [from agendabot]
14:12:39 <bendm> acoburn: we have an early draft right now
14:12:54 <bendm> ... hopefully, next week we can open this up to everyone
14:13:26 <bendm> ... we're going to do some work on it first, e.g. looking at other data models such as ODRL
14:13:31 <bendm> ... once it's more stable, it'll be opened up
14:14:14 <bendm> ... so it's currently a couple of pages
14:14:19 <dmitriz> +1 to separate doc
14:14:22 <bendm> ... question is: should it be a separate doc, or integrated?
14:14:28 <bendm> ... there are advantages either way
14:14:38 <bendm> ... a decision right now doesn't commit it
14:14:49 <bendm> ... for the long term
14:14:55 <gibsonf1> q+
14:14:58 <bendm> ... so, any comments on that?
14:15:05 <laurens> ack gibsonf
14:15:18 <bendm> gibsonf1: currently it's 10 pages, does that mean it's a very complicated thing to implement?
14:15:25 <bendm> acoburn: goal is that it's not complicated
14:15:53 <bendm> ... section 1: use service metadata + example
14:16:08 <bendm> ... section 2: protocol: these are LWS containers, process them as such + extra features
14:16:42 <bendm> ... you should be able to implement this using vanilla LWS containers, but you might want to add more features
14:17:03 <bendm> ... section 3: how this ties to Notifications spec (although the Notifiations spec part isn't ready yet)
14:17:15 <bendm> ... section 4: the data model, most volatile, takes a lot of text
14:18:13 <bendm> q+ to say +1 on separate doc
14:18:35 <bendm> bendm: +1 on separate doc
14:18:39 <laurens> ack bendm
14:18:39 <Zakim> bendm, you wanted to say +1 on separate doc
14:18:55 <eBremer> +1 on separate doc
14:18:58 <bendm> acoburn: there are going to be some terms defined in the jsonld context
14:19:09 <bendm> ... should we have a separate context, or a combined context?
14:19:16 <bendm> ... it's a different decision
14:19:22 <bendm> +1 on integrated context
14:19:46 <bendm> acoburn: integrated context is easier for clients, marginally easier for servers
14:19:49 <TallTed> q+
14:19:58 <eBremer> +1 on integrated context
14:20:02 <pchampin> +1 on separate specs, and +1 on an integrated context
14:20:04 <laurens> ack TallTed
14:20:06 <bendm> laurens: also in favor of integrated context, possibly type scoping
14:20:46 <bendm> TallTed: when considering a separate doc is warranted: let's ignore examples in that decision
14:21:16 <bendm> ... the english prose is fine, that increases the functional length, but jsonld does not add to the functional length
14:21:30 <bendm> acoburn: examples indeed take a huge amount of space
14:21:39 <bendm> q+ to ask whether that matters for testing
14:21:51 <laurens> ack bendm
14:21:51 <Zakim> bendm, you wanted to ask whether that matters for testing
14:22:36 <bendm> bendm: separate doc or integrated: is that editorial or does that matter for eg conformance testing?
14:22:45 <bendm> TallTed: doesn't matter: Optional is optional
14:23:06 <bendm> acoburn: back to context: should we define in the same LWS namespace?
14:23:40 <bendm> +1 to one namespace
14:23:49 <bendm> q+ to clarify versioning
14:23:54 <pchampin> +1 to one namespace
14:23:57 <laurens> ack bendm
14:23:57 <Zakim> bendm, you wanted to clarify versioning
14:24:04 <eBremer> +1 to one namespace
14:24:18 <Luke> +1 to namespace
14:24:22 <Wonsuk> +1 to one namespace
14:24:40 <pchampin> +1 to version context documents, -1 to version vocabulary namespaces
14:24:41 <bendm> bendm: we want to version the context document, so as not to make things harder in the future?
14:24:58 <bendm> acoburn: yes, we version context document, we do not version the vocabulary
14:25:12 <bendm> +1
14:25:59 <bendm> Luke: open discussion is balance between the more enterprise-type features and less enterprise-type features
14:26:14 <bendm> ... we can discuss that more once more people had a look at it
14:26:30 <bendm> acuborn: goal is to make it possible to create enterprise features, without requiring everyone to do such things
14:26:55 <bendm> q+ to ask about external services vs internal services
14:27:09 <acoburn> s/acuborn/acoburn
14:27:42 <bendm> bendm: to ask about external services vs internal services
14:28:01 <bendm> acoburn: there's no limitation/constraints on the url of the service: could be internal or external
14:28:07 <bendm> +1
14:28:26 <laurens> zakim, open agendum 5
14:28:26 <Zakim> agendum 5 -- Status of other core work items: test suite, notifications, type index, vocabularies -- taken up [from agendabot]
14:28:53 <laurens> https://nlnet.nl/project/LinkedWebStorage-testsuite/
14:28:54 <bendm> laurens: the other core work items
14:29:02 <bendm> ... for the test suite, there is an NLNet grant
14:29:08 <bendm> ... to improve the existing Solid test suite
14:29:14 <bendm> ... to validate LWS compliance
14:29:36 <bendm> ... in terms of timeline, we need to see whether this matches the LWS WG timeline
14:29:44 <bendm> ... this test suite is quite critical
14:29:45 <acoburn> q+ to mention timeframe of grant
14:29:52 <laurens> ack acoburn
14:29:52 <Zakim> acoburn, you wanted to mention timeframe of grant
14:30:14 <bendm> acoburn: the link says that that NLNet grant will start this month
14:30:21 <bendm> ... so that sounds good
14:30:27 <bendm> laurens: on notifications
14:30:56 <bendm> ... I don't think we have anyone to volunteer leading this initiative
14:31:10 <bendm> ... so anyone volunteering, that would be great
14:31:42 <bendm> acoburn: I'll set an action for me to open github issues
14:32:09 <bendm> q+ to ask about solid notification vs ldn
14:32:12 <acoburn> ACTION: acoburn to open GitHub issues for each of the work items: test suite, notifications, type index
14:32:20 <gb> Created -> action #100 https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/issues/100
14:32:20 <laurens> ack bendm
14:32:20 <Zakim> bendm, you wanted to ask about external services vs internal services and to ask about solid notification vs ldn
14:32:53 <bendm> bendm: what notifications are we talking about? solid notifications or LDN?
14:33:00 <bendm> acoburn: there are multiple notifications
14:33:13 <bendm> ... real-time notification, e.g. websockets on updates of resources
14:33:30 <bendm> ... offline notifications, i.e. you wanna be informed when something got changed
14:33:44 <bendm> ... Linked Data Notifications is very relevant, but lacks the authentication portion of it
14:34:05 <bendm> ... my opinion: LWS could contribute as to how authentication works
14:34:24 <bendm> ... we wanna reuse the data models and inboxes, but it does not describe how it handles authenticated requests
14:34:51 <bendm> laurens: on type indexes
14:35:05 <bendm> ... gifsonf1 you will volunteer to propose something there?
14:35:13 <bendm> gibsonf1: yes, will have something by next week
14:35:29 <bendm> laurens: finally, vocabularies and jsonld contexts
14:35:33 <bendm> ... we draft quite some terms
14:35:41 <bendm> ... and uris
14:35:48 <bendm> ... so it makes sense to gather this in a voc
14:35:55 <bendm> ... and a normative jsonld context
14:36:35 <bendm> ... maybe it's a bit early now, but it's something we will have to address
14:36:36 <acoburn> q+ to ask about timing of vocab resources
14:36:42 <laurens> ack acoburn
14:36:42 <Zakim> acoburn, you wanted to ask about timing of vocab resources
14:38:25 <bendm> acoburn: pchampin, what's a good strategy here?
14:39:48 <bendm> pchampin: DID did do a publish soon and often with a beta marker. The only normative thing is publish on /TR, but publishing on /ns also gives some weight to some people, so we should publish something reasonable there
14:40:00 <bendm> ... we could already publish with a clear marker
14:40:18 <bendm> acoburn: so, timewise, somewhere around CR is a good moment
14:40:33 <bendm> pchampin: yes, but if you want to already draft something for testing, have a clear marker
14:40:49 <bendm> acoburn: and could we already build something on Github without publishing?
14:41:39 <bendm> pchampin: publishing on github is a good thing, and things changing on github is more in line with the expectation of users
14:42:12 <bendm> ... Ivan Herman developed a tool where the vocabulary is mostly described in a YAML file, and generates the context, turtle, html artefacts
14:42:18 <pchampin> https://w3c.github.io/yml2vocab/
14:42:42 <acoburn> +1 on a single source of truth
14:43:15 <bendm> pchampin: single source of truth + close contact with the developer
14:43:53 <bendm> laurens: I'll try it out
14:43:57 <laurens> ACTION: laurens to set up yml2vocab for the as-is terms in the specification
14:43:59 <gb> Created -> action #101 https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/issues/101
14:44:10 <laurens> zakim, open agendum 6
14:44:10 <Zakim> agendum 6 -- Status of ancillary work items: solid migration, use cases & requirements -- taken up [from agendabot]
14:45:08 <bendm> laurens: idea was to have a note drafted to migrate from Solid to LWS
14:45:27 <bendm> ... we cannot really lead that work item, but we can help the Solid CG
14:45:36 <bendm> ... pavlik is also following the chat
14:45:55 <bendm> ... I think it makes sense that someone from the Solid CG leads that
14:46:03 <bendm> laurens: about use cases & requirements
14:46:07 <bendm> ... we did a lot last year
14:46:13 <bendm> ... we haven't done prioritization yet
14:46:21 <acoburn> q+ to talk about prioritization
14:46:31 <bendm> ... we should do that and update the UCR
14:46:34 <laurens> ack acoburn
14:46:34 <Zakim> acoburn, you wanted to talk about prioritization
14:47:19 <bendm> acoburn: the listing of the requirements was prioritized, but we did not clarify what was in and what was out
14:47:38 <bendm> ... we started working on the themes, but a lot of work still needs to be done
14:47:54 <bendm> ... I'll reach out to Hadrian
14:48:04 <bendm> laurens: we should reach out, but also finalize that doc
14:48:18 <bendm> ... so we can move along with the specification work
14:48:49 <bendm> ... if anyone else would be volunteering to lead on the UCR doc, that would be encouraged
14:48:52 <laurens> zakim, open agendum 7
14:48:52 <Zakim> agendum 7 -- WebID-CID document -> proposal https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/96 -- taken up [from agendabot]
14:49:16 <bendm> laurens: quite some discussion on #96
14:49:17 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/96 -> Pull Request 96 Propose Web-CID Profile for Agent Identification (by uvdsl)
14:50:08 <bendm> ... some issues: there are things that go beyond the scope of https
14:51:07 <bendm> ... I propose people to chime in on the discussion on #96
14:51:11 <acoburn> q+ to talk about scope and timeframe
14:51:17 <laurens> ack acoburn
14:51:17 <Zakim> acoburn, you wanted to talk about scope and timeframe
14:51:21 <bendm> ... my last comment tries to summarize up to now
14:51:31 <bendm> acoburn: there are a lot of interesting things in that proposal
14:51:59 <bendm> ... but I'm also concerned about how much time it would take up to approach all of the PR's ambitions
14:52:28 <bendm> ... I wonder whether we can create a new authentication suite that limits URIs to CID-URIs
14:52:30 <pchampin> q+
14:52:33 <bendm> ... I think that's all we have time for
14:52:36 <laurens> ack pchampin
14:52:45 <bendm> pchampin: +1 to acoburn and laurens
14:52:59 <bendm> ... reducing the scope does not mean the rest is not interesting
14:53:24 <bendm> ... uvdsl acknowledged that the scope went beyond the WG scope
14:53:43 <bendm> ... so it's more about splitting the efforts in 2 different venues, than limiting the scope
14:54:00 <laurens> q?
14:54:51 <bendm> laurens: we could create a new authn suite to limit the CID-URIs to HTTP-URIs
14:55:11 <bendm> ... if you create a authn suite that identifies using HTTP-URIs, that fits within the scope of the charter
14:55:24 <bendm> acoburn: I think that solves the concerns of Christoph
14:55:49 <bendm> laurens: it would also solve how other contributors could restrict a set of resolution mechanisms
14:56:00 <acoburn> q+ to mention FPWD
14:56:06 <laurens> ack acoburn
14:56:06 <Zakim> acoburn, you wanted to mention FPWD
14:56:14 <bendm> acoburn: we are moving along with FPWD publication
14:56:25 <bendm> ... target date is 24 or 26/3
14:56:33 <pchampin> RRSAgent, make minutes
14:56:35 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/03/16-lws-minutes.html pchampin
14:59:17 <acoburn> elf-pavlik: there are three requirements of an authN suite: an identifier for the suite (which needs to be unique), a mapping betwee the abstract (subject, issuer, etc) values to the serialization definition, and the validation requirements.
14:59:27 <acoburn> elf-pavlik: the first item would need to be new
14:59:51 <acoburn> elf-pavlik: the second item could simply say "the mapping is the same as in X authN suite"
15:00:01 <elf-pavlik> yes, but if new ones could reuse rather than copy&paste it might be cleaner
15:00:14 <elf-pavlik> ok, that's great!
15:00:16 <acoburn> elf-pavlik: the third item could say: "the validation is the same plus we also require HTTPS uris"
15:00:42 <acoburn> elf-pavlik: that could, in principle, make for a *very* short authN suite
15:00:46 <elf-pavlik> i'll drop your comments in the PR
15:51:13 <gb> gb has joined #lws
16:18:32 <acoburn> acoburn has left #lws
21:29:51 <dmitriz> dmitriz has joined #lws
22:29:19 <dmitriz> dmitriz has joined #lws