Meeting minutes
Introductions and announcements
ericP: welcome and introductions
jeswr: running inperson lws wg f2f
… hackathon in parallel 27th and 28th
… if you want to help mentor...contact Jesse
<Zakim> acoburn, you wanted to ask about remote joining information
jeswr: symposium Thursday and Friday of that week
acoburn: people can join remotely for f2f
… pchampin if you can add to the agenda the zoom link
pchampin: i cant take of that
<elf-pavlik> I arrive to London on 25th, is there an option to join as an observer?
ericP: any other annoucements or intros?
Agenda for F2F #121
ericP: agenda in a PR#121
<gb> PR#121
acoburn: high priority things I want to front load
… starting point. keep in mind ordering for remote people
… we wont be getting to TR status in time...so rechartering...
… what will that process look like
… goals? scope?
… dont want to take up whole day
<ericP> Linked Web Storage Working Group Charter
acoburn: we have recommendation track which need significant work to make sure they all land
… Access requests, Type Index, Notifications, test suite
… a lot of feed back on ARs. some on TI
… I would like to move all of them along
… we will need a test suite. implementations not part of this
… ODI has been taking some of this work on
<ericP> LWS Access Requests and Access Grants
<gb> Pull Request 106 Add editors draft for LWS Access Requests and Access Grants (by acoburn)
acoburn: those are things we have committee to that need work
… couple of items in our recommendation track that aren't fully clarified
… spend some time working through those
<ericP> Type Index Section
<gb> Pull Request 115 add Type Index Section (by ebremer)
acoburn: some non-rec documents that need some attention
… primer, best practices...
… a solid compatibility document
… dont necessarily need them right away, possibly push that out a bit further
<ericP> UC&R doc
acoburn: PR just a proposal. any suggestions changes?
… anything remote people would prefer to see morning or afternoon?
ryey: I'll be joinung froim UTC +8. I will be able to attend mornings and early afternoon
… thats restriction from my side
… interested in AR, TI, notification for the first day
acoburn: would like to timebox feature section to an hour
… Rui we dont need to restrict and can adjust things around as needed
gibsonf1: I'm california time
… after lunch will be easier
… what happens when container is both container and data resource
… what happens when a get is done on it?
acoburn: I do think this is terminology. Can they be bother? is a disjoint set? My understanding it is, but it will require a group discussion
<Zakim> bendm, you wanted to suggest to move terminology/container vs resource first
bendm: suggestion to move this point to first day after lunch
… since it affects many things
ryey: TI after lunch is fine
acoburn: we can adjust on the day as well
… just dont want to miss anything major
Vocabularies #112
<laurens> w3c/
<gb> MERGED Pull Request 112 feat(vocab): setup yml2vocab for managing the LWS vocabulary and json-ld context (by laurensdeb) [editorial]
laurens: vocabularies relates to PR and took the liberty to merge it #112
<gb> MERGED Pull Request 112 feat(vocab): setup yml2vocab for managing the LWS vocabulary and json-ld context (by laurensdeb) [editorial]
laurens: non-normative document for LWS
… creates as turtle and json-ld. all non-normative
… update to github actions for how gh pages have been built
… we have context and vocabulary now being built
… we need a WG decision to publish that non-normative vocab and context
pchampin: we need decision to publish the HTML doc or rendering . For some reason the TTL and JSON-LD context artifacts are not covered by the W3C process.
laurens: will remove from my proposal
<laurens> PROPOSAL: The LWS WG shall publish the non-normative LWS Vocabularies as FPWD documents: https://
laurens: we weill have straw poll on the publication of LWS voab HTML
<laurens> +1
<eBremer> +1
<acoburn> +1
<ericP> +1
<ryey> +1
<jeswr> +1
<TallTed> +1
<pchampin> +1
<bendm> +1
<gibsonf1> +1
<AZ> +0 (I need to take a closer look to it)
tallted: resolution should include a date stamp on the documents
RESOLUTION: The LWS WG shall publish the non-normative LWS Vocabularies as draft note documents in their state as of 2026-04-13: /w3c.github.io/lws-protocol/lws-10-vocab/index.html/https://
ericP: anyone else want to vote? issues?
bendm: I have tech questions I will put in as an issue
… voc adds the domain of LWS container to activity streams ...doesnt feel clean to me...
laurens: have discussion to reference or include a choice we will have to make
pchampin: yaml to vocab tool developed in-house by Ivan Herman from W3C
… we can ask for adjustments
Access Request Proposal #106: Open questions
acoburn: any questions?
<bendm> nevermind my comment on vocab, I manually interpreted the yaml file as if it would create the actual rdfs:domain triples in the ttl file, but it doesn't, so my issue is no longer valid
acoburn: should we remove 7.3 Endpoint Authorization?
… will go into security guidance anything. dont know if we actually need 7.3
<bendm> +1 to remove, I prefer best practices than prematurely limiting future usage
<eBremer> +1 to removal
<ryey> +1 to removal
acoburn: 6.2 actions - in core of lws we define read, modify, create, delete...
… jesse suggested adding append
acoburn: I would suggest not unless its just bytes
… would require deeper parsing for other types
<Zakim> gibsonf, you wanted to ask about target
acoburn: doesnt mean you can never have append
gibsonf1: on the target, your including the URI for the resource and also having to tell the resource what kind it is. not understanding...
gibsonf1: easier to indicate the relation youre looking for rather than having to force
acoburn: idea is that when you give access to container but everything inside the container
… how they work in many other contexts
… if you give access to individual resources, it wouldn't include anything else
gibsonf1: in the storage approach, you would give access to full hierarchy, but consider the that someone could have rights to the container but not the children
acoburn: suggest commenting on PR to accommodate what you are saying
… Ben brought up a couple of times in the reviews but has not been fully integrated here...
… hard connection between JSON-LD and this data model
… there could be other serializations
tallted: Ive heard and read in past couple of days, people dont want to do X because it will break stuff
… implementations that call themselves LWS aren't really
… I want to be really careful that we dont say we cant do X, which is the best idea because it will break stuff
Type Index Proposal #115: Clarification of scope
eBremer: current proposal PR#115
<pchampin> w3c/
<gb> Pull Request 115 add Type Index Section (by ebremer)
eBremer: happy to change the name to distinguish from the SOLID Type Index implementation
… this index is a union of what you're allowed to see based on your credentials
… deref gives you the URIs and the total items (that you're allowed to see)
gibsonf1 suggested loosening to allow non-HTTP-link-headers
ebremer: gibsonf1, i disagreed on the ordering. you suggested search before types but I view types as orientation that then informs search
gibsonf1: we have search without types
… we could query types but just add other query parms to ehance to their desired expressivity
eBremer: sure; happy with extensibility
<Zakim> acoburn, you wanted to ask that everyone familiarize themselves with this and other proposals before the f2f mtg
acoburn: we want to reach consensus at the f2f to please read up in the next two weeks
acoburn: please familiarize yourself with the proposals so we can come to consensus at the f2f
… we should know if we're going to take these features to CR
Issue triage
acoburn: please review issues and respond if you have any thoughts