13:56:26 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #lws
13:56:31 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2026/06/15-lws-irc
13:56:35 <acoburn> zakim, start meeting
13:56:35 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
13:56:37 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), acoburn
13:56:48 <acoburn> agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/a19ab7dc-1753-433d-bac5-64e3ad8c0a43/20260615T100000/#agenda
13:56:50 <agendabot> clear agenda
13:56:50 <agendabot> agenda+ Introduction & Announcements
13:56:50 <agendabot> agenda+ TPAC Meeting
13:56:50 <agendabot> agenda+ Vote: Relationship to OAuth2 -> PR#169 https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/169
13:56:50 <agendabot> agenda+ Vote: Remove Unstable Features section -> PR#168 https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/168
13:56:53 <agendabot> agenda+ Vote: Auxiliary Resources -> PR#165 https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/165  / -> PR#167 https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/167
13:56:55 <acoburn> meeting: Linked Web Storage
13:56:57 <agendabot> agenda+ Discussion: Should Notifications document go into LWS Core?
13:56:59 <agendabot> agenda+ Discussion: Virtual Resources -> Issue#150 https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/issues/150
13:57:02 <agendabot> agenda+ Discussion: Issue Backlog Triage
13:57:05 <agendabot> agenda+ Review Project Spreadsheet
13:57:10 <eBremer> eBremer has joined #lws
13:57:11 <acoburn> chair: acoburn
13:57:18 <acoburn> rrsagent, make minutes
13:57:19 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/06/15-lws-minutes.html acoburn
13:57:50 <TallTed> TallTed has joined #lws
13:57:51 <acoburn> previous meeting: https://www.w3.org/2026/06/08-lws-minutes.html
13:58:03 <acoburn> next meeting: https://www.w3.org/2026/06/22-lws-minutes.html
13:58:09 <acoburn> present+
13:58:14 <acoburn> rrsagent, make minutes
13:58:15 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/06/15-lws-minutes.html acoburn
13:59:39 <gibsonf1> gibsonf1 has joined #lws
13:59:50 <gibsonf1> present+
13:59:55 <elf-pavlik> elf-pavlik has joined #lws
14:01:30 <langsamu> langsamu has joined #lws
14:02:04 <TallTed> present+
14:02:04 <elf-pavlik> present+
14:02:14 <ericP> ericP has joined #lws
14:02:18 <ericP> present+
14:02:24 <langsamu> present+
14:02:30 <jeremycaine> jeremycaine has joined #lws
14:02:36 <jeswr> jeswr has joined #lws
14:02:41 <jeswr> present+
14:02:43 <jeremycaine> present+
14:03:52 <AZ> AZ has joined #lws
14:03:56 <AZ> present+
14:04:02 <eBremer> present+
14:04:15 <laurens> laurens has joined #lws
14:04:32 <laurens> scribe+
14:04:35 <laurens> present+
14:04:44 <acoburn> zakim, open agendum 1
14:04:44 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Introduction & Announcements -- taken up [from agendabot]
14:06:03 <acoburn> zakim, open agendum 2
14:06:03 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- TPAC Meeting -- taken up [from agendabot]
14:06:30 <laurens> acoburn: This is a time-sensitive matter as we need to respond by Wednesday, June 17th
14:06:36 <laurens> ... TPAC is this fall, in october
14:06:43 <Rbreitman> Rbreitman has joined #lws
14:06:45 <laurens> https://www.w3.org/events/tpac/2026/
14:07:02 <laurens> ... If we want to reserve time for the WG to meet in person we need to request this.
14:07:13 <laurens> ... Do we want any slots? We probably do.
14:07:43 <laurens> ... There are slots on all days, except Wednesday.
14:08:00 <laurens> ... You have to decide which are acceptable. Everyone wants to meet on Tuesday & Thursday.
14:08:21 <laurens> ... Monday and Friday are more likely to be accepted. But attendance may be lower due to travel.
14:08:38 <laurens> ... One slot for a joint session with the CG perhaps.
14:08:49 <jeremycaine> q+
14:08:50 <laurens> ... How many do we want for the WG as a dedicated slot?
14:08:55 <acoburn> ack next
14:09:06 <elf-pavlik> q+ to ask about Social WG/CG
14:09:16 <laurens> jeremycaine: Can you explain, there's a f2f meeting like we had in London?
14:09:31 <laurens> acoburn: This would be akin to our F2F meeting, we would have a set agenda.
14:09:43 <laurens> ... WG members would be welcome as well as other interested observers.
14:10:02 <laurens> ... This is typically the time when WGs want to have a F2F meeting.
14:10:18 <laurens> ... Last year TPAC was in Japan, this was challenging to many. So we had our meeting in Belgium.
14:10:35 <ryey> ryey has joined #lws
14:10:45 <ryey> present+
14:10:46 <laurens> ... In order to have a F2F meeting we would select some number of slots.
14:11:15 <laurens> jeremycaine: We had two days in London, so probably 8 slots?
14:11:36 <jeswr> q+
14:11:38 <laurens> acoburn: This is also an opportunity to meet with other WGs. E.g. VC, FedId, Accessibility, ...
14:12:03 <laurens> ... If we were to ask for many slots, that might make it challenging for our WG members to attend other meetings.
14:12:23 <laurens> ... The meetings run in parallel, and there are a limited number of rooms.
14:12:36 <laurens> ... If we were to ask for 11 slots, we wouldn't be likely to get all slots.
14:12:37 <acoburn> ack next
14:12:38 <Zakim> elf-pavlik, you wanted to ask about Social WG/CG
14:13:00 <elf-pavlik> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/Collection_Comparison
14:13:06 <laurens> elf-pavlik: We were discussing to meet with the Socal Web WG/CG.
14:13:28 <laurens> ... For example the collections could work across LWS and ActivityPub, that is a challenge.
14:13:36 <laurens> ... It would be a good idea to coordinate this work.
14:13:41 <AZ> q+ to mention that the Autonomous Agents on the Web CG will meet at TPAC and would like to liaise with LWS WG at some point
14:13:50 <acoburn> -> https://github.com/w3c/tpac2026-meetings TPAC
14:14:16 <laurens> acoburn: In the open issues on the repo you can see the requested slots by each group.
14:15:16 <dmitriz> dmitriz has joined #lws
14:15:20 <acoburn> ack next
14:15:32 <laurens> jeswr: I would propose three joint sessions.
14:15:33 <bigbluehat> bigbluehat has joined #lws
14:16:23 <laurens> ... One for the LWS WG and Solid CG to cover the work items that would be incubated, a second on identity on the web with FedID, VC, LWS and Social Web WGs, and the third is LWS and Social Web WG (like pavlik proposed)
14:16:44 <laurens> ... So maybe 8 hours, with three hours reserved for these joint sessions.
14:17:03 <laurens> acoburn: So that would be 8 sessions, which run for 1,5 hour each.
14:17:16 <acoburn> ack next
14:17:17 <Zakim> AZ, you wanted to mention that the Autonomous Agents on the Web CG will meet at TPAC and would like to liaise with LWS WG at some point
14:17:28 <laurens> AZ: I would like to mention that the Web Agents CG just had a meeting
14:17:38 <laurens> ... We were discussing what we could do at TPAC.
14:17:55 <laurens> ... Looking at the various groups, one of the candidates was LWS.
14:18:03 <laurens> ... I'm not sure we need a joint meeting at TPAC.
14:18:17 <laurens> ... But it would be good that the two groups meet online, maybe before or after TPAC.
14:18:21 <acoburn> +1 for joint meeting/discussion
14:18:43 <jeswr> +1 for joint. I am working a lot on agents personally and using Solid and LWS specs in that
14:18:56 <laurens> acoburn: @AZ could you propose some topics for us to discuss?
14:19:17 <jeremycaine> +1 propose 3 x LWS (approx 0.5 working day at 4.5h) plus 5 x LWS with others (per Jesse)
14:19:37 <laurens> acoburn: I would like to wrap this up in the next 5 minutes.
14:20:07 <acoburn> q?
14:20:19 <laurens> q+
14:20:24 <acoburn> ack next
14:21:32 <laurens> laurens: I would like to keep at least 4 slots (ideally 5) for LWS, given implementer feedback, test suite and moving towards CR.
14:21:34 <jeremycaine> +1 for 5 slots, with 3 for joint
14:21:36 <jeswr> +1 for reserving 5 LWS slots
14:21:39 <ericP> +1 for 5
14:21:47 <laurens> acoburn: What does the WG think of 5 slots for LWS WG meetings only.
14:22:03 <elf-pavlik> +1 hybrid if possible
14:22:19 <laurens> acoburn: They will be hybrid, but I cannot guarantee the timing.
14:22:24 <AZ> I'm not going to be present at TPAC (because ISWC) but ok with 5 slots
14:22:30 <laurens> ... I can take the lead on requesting this.
14:22:37 <laurens> ... Are there non-acceptable time slots?
14:23:22 <jeremycaine> +1 to laurens suggestion
14:23:27 <laurens> laurens: Maybe exclude the slots on Friday afternoon, and the first slot on Monday morning.
14:23:34 <laurens> acoburn: I'll make the request.
14:23:54 <laurens> ... We'll have to request a joint session with the Solid CG. Someone more involved in the CG should take the lead.
14:23:58 <laurens> elf-pavlik: I can do that.
14:24:22 <laurens> acoburn: We should avoid conflict with other LWS or Solid CG meetings.
14:24:39 <laurens> ... Could you take the lead jeswr on the other joint sessions?
14:24:48 <laurens> jeswr: Can I make that request?
14:25:10 <laurens> acoburn: It does say group chairs. But it's probably fine.
14:25:27 <acoburn> zakim, open agendum 3
14:25:27 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- Vote: Relationship to OAuth2 -> PR#169 https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/169 -- taken up [from agendabot]
14:25:43 <laurens> acoburn: This should be fairly easy.
14:26:13 <laurens> ... This PR adds a single line to the core specification
14:26:21 <laurens> ... clarifies that the baseline is OAuth2.
14:26:48 <acoburn> PROPOSAL: to merge PR https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/169 OAuth relationship
14:26:49 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/169 -> Pull Request 169 Clarify relationship to OAuth 2.0 (by acoburn)
14:26:50 <elf-pavlik> +1
14:26:51 <gibsonf1> +1
14:26:52 <ericP> +1
14:26:54 <eBremer> +1
14:26:55 <jeremycaine> +1
14:27:12 <acoburn> +1
14:27:14 <TallTed> +1
14:27:21 <laurens> +1
14:27:40 <acoburn> RESOLUTION: to merge PR https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/169 OAuth relationship
14:27:56 <acoburn> zakim, open agendum 4
14:27:56 <Zakim> agendum 4 -- Vote: Remove Unstable Features section -> PR#168 https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/168 -- taken up [from agendabot]
14:28:31 <laurens> acoburn: At present we have a section for unstable features
14:28:45 <laurens> ... It includes inbox, notifications, profile negotiation, ...
14:28:51 <laurens> ... I am just removing that entire section.
14:29:06 <laurens> ... There is a question about where notifications are defined.
14:29:18 <laurens> ... They are an actual feature, so that should be linked in the core specification.
14:29:30 <laurens> ... Should we remove that unstable features section?
14:29:46 <laurens> ... I believe we should rather make that remark inline than in a separate section.
14:29:51 <laurens> ... Any questions?
14:30:08 <acoburn> PROPOSAL: to merge PR https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/168 Unstable features section
14:30:09 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/168 -> Pull Request 168 Remove 'Unstable Features' section (by acoburn)
14:30:12 <ericP> +1
14:30:15 <jeremycaine> +1
14:30:16 <elf-pavlik> +m
14:30:16 <gibsonf1> +1
14:30:17 <dmitriz> +1
14:30:18 <eBremer> +1
14:30:24 <acoburn> +1
14:30:24 <laurens> +1
14:30:24 <TallTed> +1
14:30:31 <elf-pavlik> +m
14:30:35 <elf-pavlik> +1
14:30:38 <ryey> +1
14:30:50 <acoburn> RESOLUTION: to merge PR https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/168 Unstable features section
14:31:10 <acoburn> zakim, open agendum 5
14:31:10 <Zakim> agendum 5 -- Vote: Auxiliary Resources -> PR#165 https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/165  / -> PR#167 https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/167 -- taken up [from agendabot]
14:31:43 <laurens> acoburn: There are two competing pull requests here.
14:31:54 <laurens> ... The first one is from Wouter, who is not here today.
14:32:00 <laurens> ... I think we do need to discuss it.
14:32:01 <TallTed> q+
14:32:12 <laurens> ... The second PR is from Pierre-Antoine who is also absent today.
14:32:19 <acoburn> ack next
14:32:20 <eBremer> +1 pausing vote
14:32:23 <laurens> ... We should probably pause the vote.
14:32:33 <laurens> TallTed: I agree with pausing the vote.
14:32:41 <laurens> ... I don't have a particular issue with either one.
14:33:05 <laurens> ... But it is unclear what the issues are with the former that necesitated the later PR.
14:33:31 <laurens> acoburn: My understanding is that, in almost every case, the two are practically the same.
14:33:55 <laurens> ... There is a case where an LWS storage for a data resource is storing a resource with the media type application/linkset.
14:34:12 <laurens> ... And then separately has its own linkset, there is no way for the client to distinguish both.
14:34:41 <elf-pavlik> +q to comment on this edge case
14:34:51 <laurens> ... In Wouter's PR a client would not be able to negotiate between a data resource that is a linkset and the associated linkset for that resource.
14:35:02 <acoburn> ack next
14:35:03 <Zakim> elf-pavlik, you wanted to comment on this edge case
14:35:17 <laurens> elf-pavlik: It is important to clarify these scenario's
14:35:23 <laurens> ... This should also be part of a test suite.
14:35:55 <laurens> ... For the edge case, this only affects implementations that choose to use content negotiation.
14:36:04 <laurens> ... So it doesn't affect all implementations probably.
14:36:13 <laurens> ... But this is probably an edge case.
14:36:30 <laurens> ... I would like to know if there's a functional difference.
14:36:49 <laurens> acoburn: I would encourage people to engage with these PRs.
14:37:07 <laurens> ... Focus conversation on PR #165.
14:37:07 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/165 -> Pull Request 165 Define aux & meta in terms of representations (by termontwouter)
14:37:25 <laurens> ... Any other comments?
14:38:28 <laurens> rrsagent, draft minutes
14:38:29 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/06/15-lws-minutes.html laurens
14:38:48 <acoburn> zakim, open agendum 6
14:38:48 <Zakim> agendum 6 -- Discussion: Should Notifications document go into LWS Core? -- taken up [from agendabot]
14:39:00 <laurens> acoburn: This should be easy.
14:39:32 <laurens> ... Notifications are currently in their own document.
14:39:34 <laurens> q+
14:39:43 <laurens> ... Should this be moved into core.
14:39:49 <laurens> ... Or is there a subset?
14:39:51 <acoburn> ack next
14:40:21 <acoburn> scribe+
14:40:25 <elf-pavlik> q+ to suggest that subscription types should stay separate
14:40:39 <acoburn> laurens: to me it's whether this is a requirement or optional
14:40:48 <acoburn> ... currently optional
14:40:57 <acoburn> ... are there other optional features in core?
14:41:09 <acoburn> ack next
14:41:10 <Zakim> elf-pavlik, you wanted to suggest that subscription types should stay separate
14:41:19 <laurens> elf-pavlik: I agree mostly with laurens
14:41:21 <acoburn> scribe-
14:41:29 <laurens> ... I would at least keep the subscription types out of the core.
14:41:50 <laurens> ... And to keep in mind the evolution of the specification over the next X years.
14:42:03 <acoburn> q+
14:42:09 <acoburn> ack next
14:42:27 <laurens> acoburn: Right now there are a couple of things that are optional or semi-optional in the core specification.
14:42:35 <laurens> ... One of these is the access requests feature.
14:42:42 <laurens> ... It had previously been in a separate document.
14:42:57 <laurens> ... That feature does reference notifications.
14:43:18 <laurens> ... As long as we're keeping access requests in the core specification, I would bring in the core of notifications in the specification.
14:43:54 <laurens> ACTION: laurens to propose a way of bringing the core of notifications into lws-core as a PR.
14:44:01 <gb> Created -> action #175 https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/issues/175
14:44:25 <acoburn> zakim, open agendum 8
14:44:25 <Zakim> agendum 8 -- Discussion: Issue Backlog Triage -- taken up [from agendabot]
14:44:36 <ericP> ericP has joined #lws
14:45:15 <laurens> acoburn: I would love to have (a subset of) this group to take e.g. Friday afternoon to go through these issues.
14:45:16 <elf-pavlik> I closed #114 which was done via PR
14:45:17 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/issues/114 -> CLOSED Issue 114 TotalItems: count MUST be exact: propose to SHOULD (by bjdmeest) [ready-for-pr]
14:45:25 <laurens> ... And work this number down.
14:45:44 <laurens> ... So that we can have the propose-close tag assigned to those issues that should be resolved.
14:46:05 <laurens> ... And if needed continue the discussion with the WG if members feel like the issues aren't resolved.
14:46:15 <jeremycaine> +1 a working group working session :-)
14:46:17 <laurens> ... I'll send out an e-mail to the WG list to coordinate.
14:46:26 <TallTed> +1 to triaging. I will join if not blocked by a previously scheduled session.
14:46:29 <acoburn> zakim, open agendum 7
14:46:29 <Zakim> agendum 7 -- Discussion: Virtual Resources -> Issue#150 https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/issues/150 -- taken up [from agendabot]
14:46:55 <ryey> q+
14:46:59 <laurens> acoburn: Is this in scope for the core of LWS, or can this be defined outside of it.
14:47:05 <acoburn> ack next
14:47:21 <laurens> ryey: That's also the reason I raised this as an issue rather than a PR.
14:47:32 <laurens> ... I don't think the full scope of virtual resources should be in LWS 1.0
14:47:54 <acoburn> +1 on making sure LWS core doesn't prevent this
14:47:55 <laurens> ... I do hope LWS 1.0 wouldn't prohibit implementers from implementing virtual resources.
14:48:10 <gibsonf1> q+ to ask ryey to give some use-cases for virtual resources
14:48:27 <acoburn> ack next
14:48:28 <laurens> q+
14:48:29 <Zakim> gibsonf, you wanted to ask ryey to give some use-cases for virtual resources
14:48:31 <jeremycaine> q+
14:48:44 <laurens> gibsonf: Could you give some use cases for virtual resources?
14:48:53 <acoburn> q+ to add some example use cases
14:49:08 <laurens> ryey: Something that looks like a resource but is not managed by the LWS service.
14:49:21 <laurens> ... For example a vector store.
14:49:42 <ericP> ericP has joined #lws
14:49:43 <laurens> ... You may want a way for a client that is "AI-enabled" to access some of your contents through another interface.
14:50:05 <laurens> ... Those vectors are an alternative representation of the data in your LWS storage.
14:50:21 <acoburn> ack next
14:50:21 <laurens> ... The client should not know where they are stored, as long as they are accessible from your storage.
14:50:23 <ericP> q+ to draw LWP parallel
14:52:02 <acoburn> ack next
14:52:13 <ryey> q+ to talk about service discovery
14:52:21 <laurens> laurens: I do think the services in the storage description could also solve many of the same use cases.
14:52:39 <laurens> jeremycaine: I'm trying to understand whether virtual resources are like a symbolic link.
14:53:11 <laurens> ... The HTTP methods on that target resource are going to be different to the virtual resource managed by the LWS server.
14:53:30 <acoburn> ack next
14:53:31 <Zakim> acoburn, you wanted to add some example use cases
14:53:33 <laurens> ... Is it a symbolic link or a link to an API endpoint?
14:53:46 <laurens> acoburn: I think there's quite a bit of incubation needed here.
14:53:55 <laurens> ... This would be great to discuss with the CG as well.
14:54:21 <laurens> ... I think of it more as a function, e.g. pass through to 1 resource, 7 resources, some file somewhere, ...
14:54:37 <laurens> ... From Inrupt's perspective we've implemented this.
14:54:43 <laurens> ... It is useful in particular contexts.
14:54:51 <laurens> ... But probably doesn't need to live in the core.
14:55:05 <laurens> ... Also, we don't want to prevent this.
14:55:09 <acoburn> ack next
14:55:10 <Zakim> ericP, you wanted to draw LWP parallel
14:55:36 <laurens> ericP: I want to point out LDP was developed to account for this.
14:55:51 <laurens> ... Our motivations are probably different from LDP.
14:55:55 <acoburn> ack next
14:55:56 <Zakim> ryey, you wanted to talk about service discovery
14:56:22 <laurens> ryey: For the service descriptions a virtual resource will use them.
14:56:38 <laurens> ... An explicit pointer to an external API is not the best option.
14:56:53 <laurens> ... For symbolic links, that depends on the flavour.
14:57:12 <laurens> ... It is a different representation so it should at least be like a hyperlink.
14:57:41 <laurens> acoburn: The consensus is that this is viable, but not for the core of LWS. We should keep this issue alive as to keep it in mind.
14:57:46 <laurens> rrsagent, draft minutes
14:57:48 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/06/15-lws-minutes.html laurens
14:58:27 <acoburn> present+ gibsonf
14:58:34 <acoburn> rrsagent, make minutes
14:58:35 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/06/15-lws-minutes.html acoburn