13:56:35 RRSAgent has joined #lws 13:56:39 logging to https://www.w3.org/2026/03/23-lws-irc 13:56:39 Zakim has joined #lws 13:57:10 acoburn has changed the topic to: Linked Web Storage WG - 2026-03-23 - https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/a19ab7dc-1753-433d-bac5-64e3ad8c0a43/20260323T100000/ 13:57:15 zakim, start meeting 13:57:15 RRSAgent, make logs Public 13:57:17 please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), acoburn 13:57:24 meeting: Linked Web Storage 13:57:32 agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/a19ab7dc-1753-433d-bac5-64e3ad8c0a43/20260323T100000/#agenda 13:57:33 clear agenda 13:57:33 agenda+ Introductions and announcements 13:57:33 agenda+ Issue triage 13:57:33 agenda+ -> Add editors draft for LWS Access Requests and Access Grants https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/106 13:57:34 agenda+ -> Pagination for LWS Containers https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/82 13:57:36 agenda+ Container-related Issues (-> #72 https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/issues/72 ,-> #69 https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/issues/69 ,-> #71 https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/issues/71 ,-> #86 https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/issues/86 ) 13:57:41 agenda+ Status of Type Indexes 13:57:57 rrsagent, make minutes 13:57:58 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/03/23-lws-minutes.html acoburn 13:58:21 previous meeting: https://www.w3.org/2026/03/16-lws-minutes.html 13:58:31 next meeting: https://www.w3.org/2026/03/30-lws-minutes.html 13:58:39 chair: acoburn 13:58:39 present+ 14:00:06 present+ 14:00:09 gibsonf1 has joined #lws 14:00:19 present+ 14:00:55 eBremer has joined #lws 14:01:52 present+ 14:02:19 present+ 14:02:41 elf-pavlik has joined #lws 14:03:37 Luke has joined #lws 14:03:40 laurens has joined #lws 14:03:41 present+ 14:03:43 present+ 14:03:54 ryey has joined #lws 14:03:54 bendm has joined #lws 14:03:59 present+ 14:04:03 present+ 14:04:07 jeswr has joined #lws 14:04:12 scribenick: jeswr 14:04:14 present+ 14:04:55 zakim, open agendum 1 14:04:55 agendum 1 -- Introductions and announcements -- taken up [from agendabot] 14:05:51 acoburn: There is an editors draft for access requests and grants which we will briefly introduce. Most discussion should then by async. 14:06:05 ...: Pagination will also be covered. 14:06:19 ...: We will cover some open issues related to containers. 14:06:30 dmitriz has joined #lws 14:06:31 ...: Then a status update on the drafting of type indexes. 14:06:53 acoburn: Firstly introuctions 14:07:52 termontwouter has joined #lws 14:08:28 termontwouter: Most people here know me. I will be covering for the next few weeks as bendm cannot make the in person meeting. 14:09:00 acoburn: announcements 14:09:25 laurens: This is the last week of different timezones. Reminder to set your agenda in UTC which does not change. 14:09:33 zakim, open issue 2 14:09:33 I don't understand 'open issue 2', acoburn 14:09:44 zakim, open agendum 2 14:09:44 agendum 2 -- Issue triage -- taken up [from agendabot] 14:11:06 acoburn: There are 5 new issues since last week. I have created 4 (#102-#105) to capture the work items discussed last week - there is nothing to triage on those. 14:11:07 https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/issues/102 -> Issue 102 LWS Test Suite (by acoburn) [work-item] 14:11:38 ...: ryey Please close #97 if it is not required. 14:11:39 https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/issues/97 -> Issue 97 Right approach to mark some likely editorial issues of the docs? (by renyuneyun) [propose-close] 14:12:14 zakim, open agendum 3 14:12:14 agendum 3 -- -> Add editors draft for LWS Access Requests and Access Grants https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/106 -- taken up [from agendabot] 14:12:58 ...: I opened #106 on Thursday last week, and did this with Luke 14:12:59 https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/106 -> Pull Request 106 Add editors draft for LWS Access Requests and Access Grants (by acoburn) 14:14:45 Luke: This pull request is opened to discuss access requests and access grants. Prior discussions have taken place, including a resultant use of ODRL as a profile to describe the content of a request and grant. 14:15:20 acoburn: There is a discovery mechanism, data model, protocol, and notifications (which is a stub as we do not have a notifications system yet). 14:16:26 ...: Discovery says use the storage description resource, giving where you can find the service endpoints 14:17:01 ...: Access Request and Grant services have a `conformsTo` predicate which determines the data model of the access request/grant 14:17:44 ...: The only requirements in the protocol is that access request and grant endpoints must be LWS containers 14:18:19 ...: There is some guidance around authorisation which could definitely use some editorial attention 14:20:01 ...: The Data Model attempts to be fairly simple, to be able to cover a wide variety of use cases without being too complicated to implement 14:20:18 ...: Noting that there could be different access policy languages under the hood of the server 14:20:44 ...: There are many use cases so some servers may need more expressive access requests to be given to them 14:21:01 ...: That is what the conformsTo predicate is for, it allows you to define different profiles. 14:21:27 ...: The default profile that we have is all basically ODRL 14:21:33 https://www.w3.org/TR/odrl-model/ 14:21:55 ...: What we have is basically an ODRL rule, what we have tried to do is take as small ODRL profile as possible without requiring too much from implementors 14:22:32 https://w3c.github.io/cg-reports/dpvcg/CG-FINAL-dpv-20221205/ 14:22:48 ...: All terms within the access object in the default data model are all ODRL term; with the exception of hasPurpose which comes from DPV 14:23:18 ...: One thing to point out is that target is currently quite limited; as the target is a URL 14:24:46 ...: The target property identifies the resource, it really needs to be improved. We need to allow for there to be a JSON object in the target so as to not have just URIs of resources that are targeted. 14:24:53 q? 14:25:15 ...: I should also point out that I would hope there is not a proliferation of too many profiles for Access Requests/Grants 14:25:42 zakim, open agendum 4 14:25:42 agendum 4 -- -> Pagination for LWS Containers https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/82 -- taken up [from agendabot] 14:26:14 laurens: I am discussing #82 - pagination for LWS containers. This has been open for some time. 14:26:15 https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/82 -> Pull Request 82 Pagination for LWS Containers (by laurensdeb) 14:27:08 ...: I don't see any remarks left on the content of the PR barring bendm's comment from 10 minutes ago 14:27:28 ...: Alternate wording is welcome for that comment 14:27:59 q+ 14:28:13 q+ to ask for pagination: that's an (optional) capability, no? 14:28:25 ...: gibsonf1 Identified that it may not sufficiently cover LWS Use Cases. I don't think opaque links are an issue, query parameters for instance can still be used 14:28:28 ack next 14:29:05 gibsonf1: After discussing this with TallTed, I am not opposed to the opaque links; just not as many in the example. 14:29:16 ...: In other words 'less is more' on this 14:29:17 +1 to only require the `next` link 14:29:31 laurens: I have already update to only require first and next links 14:29:46 gibsonf1: And those could theoretically be generated based on the user request 14:29:49 laurens: Yes. 14:29:54 ack next 14:29:55 bendm, you wanted to ask for pagination: that's an (optional) capability, no? 14:30:10 bendm: I this a capability of a server, or a core functionality of a server. 14:30:15 q+ 14:30:34 q+ to ask about pagination context 14:30:34 laurens: I interpret as an optional feature to support pagination on containers. 14:30:57 bendm: So it could be possible for pagination to not be as defined here, but for a server to then e.g. query instead 14:31:15 q+ to ask about mechanisms for advertising pagination behavior 14:31:26 ack next 14:31:27 laurens: There is no restriction on how a server performs pagination. The only think we normatively require is that thesee link headers be present 14:31:39 q+ 14:32:10 pchampin: In terms of describing this as a capability. Servers are always free not to implement it as there is a server defined threshold, which they could define as infinity and thus never follow those links 14:32:33 ...: Clients should never have to check if a server has this capability 14:32:51 ack next 14:32:52 +1 on all the things pchampin said :D 14:32:53 gibsonf, you wanted to ask about pagination context 14:33:27 gibsonf1: I am thinking it might be better to call it pagination rather than pagination for containers. Type search, for instance, will need to refer to this as well 14:33:42 ack next 14:33:43 acoburn, you wanted to ask about mechanisms for advertising pagination behavior 14:33:45 laurens: I can follow that, and the access request/grant spec will have simlar needs 14:35:05 ack next 14:35:06 laurens: I would view it as a default capability of the server to have the parameters defined in this PR. Additional capabilties that could be layered on top of pagination are other query parameters 14:35:39 +1 on pagination not being optional 14:36:20 TallTed: The challenge when making a feature optional, is that you still have to let the communication componentry has to be able to discover what is enabled. This is why I have been referring to the scrollbook implementations on ODBC and JDBC. We should not re-invent this wheel. We should pay close attention to how it has been done elsewhere; and 14:36:20 the terminology should be re-usable. 14:37:11 ...: In my mind there is a question of whether pagination is even the right term. Before giving me the list I should be able to ask "hey do you support cursors or windows etc." so that a client can say if it supports this thing, and if so, what kind it supports. 14:37:35 ...: The most basic cursor is a forward only, often you will get a window which you can specify but not always 14:37:58 ...: Generally with forward only, you can only move forward by the window specified, but not an arbitrary one which you choose. 14:38:14 ...: This ensures that parcel support is enabled by both ends of that connection 14:38:25 laurens: Concretely what would you want changed in the PR if anything 14:38:52 TallTed: I would have to read the PR more carefully, I am not prepared to give a full specification on this thing. 14:38:58 q? 14:40:02 laurens: I propose that we merge this PR, addressing the two changes opened during this call. 14:40:04 TallTed, the current proposal is agnostic to how the "next" link is constructed, or pagination handled by the server; so I think your suggestion applies to potential additional capabilities, but not to the PR as it stands 14:40:18 ...: I would like to make a vote next week. 14:40:26 acoburn: If you plan to review this, please do so. 14:40:38 zakim, open agendum 5 14:40:38 agendum 5 -- Container-related Issues (-> #72 https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/issues/72 ,-> #69 https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/issues/69 ,-> #71 14:40:38 RRSAgent, make minutes 14:40:40 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/03/23-lws-minutes.html pchampin 14:40:46 ... https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/issues/71 ,-> #86 https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/issues/86 ) -- taken up [from agendabot] 14:41:40 acoburn: There are 4 container related issues which we can either resolve now, or make a plan for resolving - #69, #71, #82, and #86 14:41:41 https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/82 -> Pull Request 82 Pagination for LWS Containers (by laurensdeb) 14:41:41 https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/issues/71 -> Issue 71 Make Resource identifiers really unique within the system (by gvseghbr) [needs-discussion] 14:41:41 https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/issues/69 -> Issue 69 (Recursive) resource/container deletion and virtual resources (by renyuneyun) [needs-discussion] 14:41:42 https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/issues/86 -> Issue 86 Have separate auxiliary resource for containment index (by damooo) [needs-discussion] 14:42:08 ...: #69 is related - but on the side of container things. There has not been a lot of conversation since last month 14:42:57 laurens: This goes to a remark which is already in the text, that containers must point to other containers/resources in the same storage. There is no current notion of virtual resources. 14:43:16 q+ 14:43:18 ...: It is more to do with how we define a resource in LWS, and whether it should live in a conainer. 14:43:24 ack next 14:44:13 ryey: I agree with the summary. I will try to find where all those use cases were located. I believe I proposed some of them when we were collecting use-cases a year ago. I will try and find some of them this week. 14:45:00 q+ to ask about container that is a data resource as well 14:45:13 acoburn: One thing that might be helpful to clarify is right now if the specification requires that a container must be a data resource or another container -- is that too constraining for such use-cases. Could it be possible that there is another type of resource that is a member of a container. Would that be helpful; or just muddy the water? 14:45:16 q+ 14:45:33 ...: Either way, I think we can set this one aside, and ryey can add additional comments 14:46:14 ack next 14:46:15 gibsonf, you wanted to ask about container that is a data resource as well 14:46:32 gibsonf1: Can a container also be a data resource 14:47:12 acoburn: It is currently a disjoint set. A container has certain requirements which are distinct from the requirements of a data resource. There is nothing explicitly saying a container cannot be a data resource -- it is just an implication that it cannot. 14:47:33 gibsonf1: A container resource can often be, and many times is, a data resources 14:47:59 ...: there are many examples of containers in the real world. A bowl which has water has attributes and information about it. 14:48:15 ...: If they were disjoint. It would make what twin pod is currently doing impossible 14:48:31 ...: When you make a request about a container, you get a representation. As opposed to data representation 14:48:52 ...: That is why I have also been talking about resources, auxillary resources - etc. 14:49:08 acoburn: This sounds like issue #86 which we will get to in a minute 14:49:49 ...: From my perspective, a container as an abstract thing could have all kinds of different forms. What we want to clarify is what an LWS container requires. 14:50:26 ...: What damoo describes is that currently in LWS we currently have a strict restriction on what the requirements are for an LWS container -- wheras an LWS resource can do whatever it wants 14:50:51 ...: One of the benefit of clearly definining resources on containers means that you can clearly define operations; and the representation is also fixed 14:51:14 ...: damoo suggests a resource could have an arbitrary type of representation (e.g. XML). 14:52:02 ...: I think there is a lot of interesting stuff there. If he treats this cotnainer as a data resource with extra features, then the same thing is opssisble without going in a very different direction. This means defining containement in a very very different way. Including ways that are not currently implemented. 14:52:17 ...: I think we should take this idea and get more maturity. 14:52:41 ....: I don't think LWS should suddenly veer in this direction whilst it is imature. 14:53:31 gibsonf1: I am not a fan of talkinf about auxillary resoruces. I would need to get on the same or dierent URi. 14:53:52 ...: I want to make sure that on a request I can get the same response as a content resource. 14:54:14 ...: The current sec doesn't prevent content negotiation (though it doesn't require it). 14:54:31 gibsonf1: Therefore I thin we should talk about representation, not resources. 14:54:53 acoburn: This already differes from the HTTP sepecification 14:55:27 gibsonf1: I think it wouldn't hurt anything to talk about, for an LWS container, the representation is X 14:55:30 q+ to ask what's the fundamental breaking point between conneg and auxiliary resource 14:55:39 ack next 14:57:30 q- 14:57:31 ryey: The current specification seems to be too restrictive in 2 ways. (1) a contained thing must be either a container or a resource (2) the metadata for those virtual resources are not necessarily known to the server at the time they are queried. I would not mandatate ??? 14:58:23 acoburn: If you have comments please leave them; I would like to resolve these issues sooner than later. 14:58:31 https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CXh4DAvcpdW7HP7SZaGvC-2iau7IZM3UETmcPm893yI/edit?usp=sharing 14:58:39 ...: Could the people working on type indexes also report 14:58:44 s/mandatate ???/mandate the server to query those information (from whatever is responsible for the virtual resources) before responding to the user due to performance considerations/ 14:58:45 eBremer: See link posted 14:59:07 rrsagent, make minutes 14:59:08 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/03/23-lws-minutes.html acoburn 15:00:03 s/...:/.../g 15:00:24 RRSAgent, make minute 15:00:24 I'm logging. I don't understand 'make minute', pchampin. Try /msg RRSAgent help 15:00:35 RRSAgent, make minutes 15:00:37 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/03/23-lws-minutes.html pchampin 15:03:48 s/the terminology should/... the terminology should 15:03:53 RRSAgent, make minutes 15:03:55 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/03/23-lws-minutes.html pchampin 15:06:04 acoburn has left #lws 16:21:24 dmitriz has joined #lws 17:09:39 gb has joined #lws 17:58:15 gb has joined #lws 23:19:52 dmitriz has joined #lws