13:57:41 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #lws
13:57:45 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2026/07/13-lws-irc
13:57:45 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #lws
13:58:10 <acoburn> acoburn has changed the topic to: Linked Web Storage - 2026-07-13 - https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/a19ab7dc-1753-433d-bac5-64e3ad8c0a43/20260713T100000/
13:58:17 <acoburn> zakim, start meeting
13:58:17 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
13:58:19 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), acoburn
13:58:30 <acoburn> agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/a19ab7dc-1753-433d-bac5-64e3ad8c0a43/20260713T100000/#agenda
13:58:30 <agendabot> clear agenda
13:58:30 <agendabot> agenda+ Introductions & Announcements
13:58:30 <agendabot> agenda+ Vote: Integrate core notification data model into lws10-core (PR #185 - -> https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/185 https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/185 )
13:58:30 <agendabot> agenda+ Discuss: Define Storage Description Resources as a specialization of CID-1.0 (PR #183 - -> https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/183 https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/183 )
13:58:32 <agendabot> agenda+ Discuss: Add introduction section (#158 - -> https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/158 https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/158 )
13:58:36 <agendabot> agenda+ Discuss: Add scope diagrams section with C4 Level 1 and Level 2 diagrams (#159 - -> https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/159/changes https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/159/changes )
13:58:36 <acoburn> rrsagent, make minutes
13:58:37 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/07/13-lws-minutes.html acoburn
13:58:44 <agendabot> agenda+ Discuss: Consolidate ConNeg requirements into the LWS Media Type Section (#190 - -> https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/190 https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/190 )
13:58:44 <agendabot> agenda+ Github Issue Triage
13:59:42 <acoburn> previous meeting: https://www.w3.org/2026/07/06-lws-minutes.html
13:59:46 <laurens> laurens has joined #lws
13:59:50 <acoburn> next meeting: https://www.w3.org/2026/07/20-lws-minutes.html
14:00:05 <acoburn> meeting: Linked Web Storage
14:00:20 <termontwouter> termontwouter has joined #lws
14:00:29 <elf-pavlik> present+
14:00:33 <gibsonf1> gibsonf1 has joined #lws
14:00:40 <gibsonf1> present+
14:01:12 <eBremer> eBremer has joined #lws
14:01:17 <acoburn> present+
14:01:19 <laurens> chair: laurens
14:01:21 <laurens> present+
14:01:23 <termontwouter> present+
14:01:30 <eBremer> present+
14:01:46 <laurens> agenda?
14:02:02 <ryey> ryey has joined #lws
14:02:08 <ryey> present+
14:02:31 <termontwouter> scribe+
14:02:44 <jeremycaine> jeremycaine has joined #lws
14:02:45 <acoburn> rrsagent, make minutes
14:02:46 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/07/13-lws-minutes.html acoburn
14:02:52 <jeremycaine> present+
14:03:30 <laurens> zakim, open agendum 1
14:03:30 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Introductions & Announcements -- taken up [from agendabot]
14:03:31 <termontwouter> laurens: We start with introductions and announcement
14:04:00 <termontwouter> ... one announcement coming from Aaron on TPAC
14:04:27 <termontwouter> acoburn: TPAC is the annual W3C event for WGs and CGs
14:04:34 <termontwouter> ... great opportunity for meeting in person
14:04:58 <termontwouter> ... This year in Dublin, Ireland from October 21st to October 26th
14:05:04 <acoburn> -> https://www.w3.org/news-events/tpac/2026/	 TPAC
14:06:05 <termontwouter> s/October 21st to October 26th/October 26th to October 30th
14:06:13 <acoburn> -> https://www.w3.org/news-events/tpac/2026/registration/#tpac-inclusion-fund-and-invited-experts-support-fund Scholarship fund
14:06:34 <termontwouter> ... At the location in chat, invited experts can apply for funding
14:06:49 <termontwouter> ... There will be a joint meeting with the CG
14:07:09 <termontwouter> ... There will be a survey/workshop about identity on the Web
14:07:13 <jeswr> jeswr has joined #lws
14:07:20 <elf-pavlik> q+ to clarify IE fund requirements
14:07:30 <laurens> ack elf-pavlik
14:07:30 <Zakim> elf-pavlik, you wanted to clarify IE fund requirements
14:07:39 <jeswr> note that joint sessions will be on the Friday in times booked by the CG
14:07:57 <termontwouter> elf-pavlik: One has to be invited expert for half a year AND be an editor to apply
14:08:01 <bigbluehat> bigbluehat has joined #lws
14:08:13 <bigbluehat> present+
14:08:15 <bigbluehat> q+
14:08:37 <laurens> ack bigbluehat
14:09:10 <termontwouter> bigbluehat: Pavlik please go ahead and submit; it never hurts, it's worth a shot
14:09:45 <termontwouter> ... Also, the JSON-LD WG is not meeting at TPAC this year, but if we want a short joint session, we can make something work
14:10:25 <elf-pavlik> q+ to make a comment on JSON-LD
14:10:29 <termontwouter> acoburn: We do have some questions regarding equivalence with JSON/JSON-LD, so there are definitely areas where some feedback would be handy
14:10:46 <laurens> ack elf-pavlik
14:10:46 <Zakim> elf-pavlik, you wanted to make a comment on JSON-LD
14:11:08 <termontwouter> elf-pavlik: It would be good to have a reference for when compaction is enough, and when we should start framing
14:11:19 <bigbluehat> q+
14:11:33 <laurens> ack bigbluehat
14:11:56 <termontwouter> bigbluehat: The line is not always clear, but we can try to sketch something up
14:12:27 <laurens> zakim, open agendum 2
14:12:27 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Vote: Integrate core notification data model into lws10-core (PR #185 - -> https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/185 https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/185 )
14:12:30 <Zakim> ... -- taken up [from agendabot]
14:12:33 <termontwouter> ... we meet at Wednesday at noon Eastern Standard Time
14:13:00 <termontwouter> laurens: Next up is a PR discussed last week to integrate core notification model into the core document
14:13:21 <termontwouter> ... There are some vocabulary items that still need a fix; I'll do that in a separate PR
14:13:24 <elf-pavlik> q+ to ask about normative references / dependencies strategy for subscription types
14:14:07 <termontwouter> ... This would align with how authentication is currently integrated in core with references to each suite
14:14:28 <termontwouter> ... I propose we move this to a vote today
14:14:42 <laurens> ack elf-pavlik
14:14:42 <Zakim> elf-pavlik, you wanted to ask about normative references / dependencies strategy for subscription types
14:15:11 <termontwouter> elf-pavlik: Looks good to me; just want to clarify that every suite now has to have toe core LWS spec as normative reference
14:15:18 <termontwouter> laurens: that is correct
14:15:45 <laurens> PROPOSAL: to accept the pull request #185 as proposed
14:15:46 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/185 -> Pull Request 185 Integrate core notification data model into lws10-core (by laurensdeb)
14:15:47 <elf-pavlik> +1
14:15:49 <termontwouter> +1
14:15:50 <laurens> +1
14:15:53 <jeremycaine> +1
14:15:59 <gibsonf1> +1
14:15:59 <ryey> +1
14:15:59 <acoburn> +1 (with the expectation that the vocab refs will be fixed)
14:16:21 <eBremer> +1
14:16:45 <laurens> RESOLVED: to accept the pull request #185 as proposed
14:17:09 <termontwouter> laurens: I will merge this later today and open a second PR for the vocabulary
14:17:20 <laurens> zakim, open agendum 3
14:17:20 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- Discuss: Define Storage Description Resources as a specialization of CID-1.0 (PR #183 - -> https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/183
14:17:22 <Zakim> ... https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/183 ) -- taken up [from agendabot]
14:17:39 <termontwouter> ... Next agenda item is the storage descriptions as CIDs
14:18:09 <termontwouter> acoburn: Pavlik asked a good question about the id field last week
14:18:23 <termontwouter> ... I looked into it and it is indeed complicated
14:18:48 <termontwouter> ... I urge everyone to look at the discussion on github
14:19:26 <termontwouter> ... First option is to simply not use a CID, but then we would basically reinvent a lot of vocabulary
14:20:08 <termontwouter> ... In december, we concluded that the subject of this document should be the storage, not the storage description
14:20:35 <termontwouter> ... so if it is a CID, and the ID is that of the storage, then the CID needs to be served from the URI of the storage
14:20:41 <gibsonf1> q+ to ask about option 2
14:21:14 <termontwouter> ... This entails that we probably won't be able to use the storage as a storage root without problems
14:21:26 <termontwouter> Second option is therefore to split the root from the storage
14:21:53 <termontwouter> Third option is to let the storage description describe itself, going against our conclusion of December
14:22:15 <termontwouter> gibsonf1: Can content negotiation be a solution?
14:22:31 <termontwouter> acoburn: I looked into it, and won't outright reject it, but it gets messy
14:22:38 <elf-pavlik> q+ to ask besides compatibility with prior work in Solid, what is the main use case for having storage and root container conflated?
14:23:11 <termontwouter> ... because there would be different access control for different sets of triples
14:23:16 <jeremycaine> q+
14:23:37 <laurens> ack gibsonf
14:23:37 <Zakim> gibsonf, you wanted to ask about option 2
14:24:05 <termontwouter> gibsonf1: So in option 2, we would use the CID accept header?
14:24:32 <termontwouter> acoburn: Indeed, we would use it, but it does not say anything about content negotiation
14:24:40 <termontwouter> ... we can discuss this further offline
14:24:43 <laurens> ack elf-pavlik
14:24:43 <Zakim> elf-pavlik, you wanted to ask besides compatibility with prior work in Solid, what is the main use case for having storage and root container conflated?
14:24:53 <jeremycaine> q-
14:25:19 <termontwouter> elf-pavlik: If we say that storage and root need to be different, this would be a breaking change w.r.t. Solid
14:25:50 <termontwouter> ... What are the main use cases that would break specifically?
14:26:08 <termontwouter> acoburn: Within LWS nothing in particular
14:26:59 <termontwouter> ... Compared to Solid, where the storage IS the root container, the storage would now serve the CID document, from which the roots would be referenced
14:27:42 <termontwouter> elf-pavlik: Would it be an option to have the storage URI be within the namespace of the root?
14:28:17 <termontwouter> acoburn: Then resources in that storage would no longer necessarily be within the namespace of the storage
14:29:16 <termontwouter> ... unless you wold put all resources inside the namespace of the storage (description), never next to it
14:29:46 <termontwouter> elf-pavlik: I think there are more options to consider, but will add some snippets to the discussion
14:30:09 <laurens> zakim, open agendum 4
14:30:09 <Zakim> agendum 4 -- Discuss: Add introduction section (#158 - -> https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/158 https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/158 ) -- taken up [from agendabot]
14:30:23 <termontwouter> laurens: Let's move to the next item, which is about the introduction PR
14:31:59 <termontwouter> jeremycaine: I added new terms, and diagrams, and edited them a few times based on feedback
14:32:29 <termontwouter> ... so it is probably ready for a vote by next meeting, especially since we can iterate on it
14:32:35 <gibsonf1> q+
14:32:35 <laurens> q?
14:32:40 <laurens> ack gibsonf1
14:33:19 <termontwouter> gibsonf1: I feel like the "interface to the resource manager" does not need the 'interface' part
14:33:52 <acoburn> q+ to mention certain terminology
14:33:56 <elf-pavlik> q+ to suggest keeping intro higher level
14:34:22 <termontwouter> ... why not call it storage manager?
14:34:34 <laurens> ack gibsonf
14:34:37 <termontwouter> jeremycaine: I'm not married to any names, but I felt that it is about more than just the data resource?
14:34:38 <laurens> ack acoburn
14:34:38 <Zakim> acoburn, you wanted to mention certain terminology
14:34:43 <elf-pavlik> q-
14:34:55 <termontwouter> acoburn: We want to keep this pretty high-level in the introduction
14:35:27 <termontwouter> ... You mention users a number of times instead of agents, but this might be too specific given the state of the web
14:35:55 <termontwouter> ... We should also avoid nuances about how an implementation might work
14:36:31 <termontwouter> ... The important part is about the use cases, who might be using this etc. on which you did a great job.
14:36:44 <elf-pavlik> q+ to mention user/agent != resource owner
14:37:00 <termontwouter> jeremycaine: So we cannot assume that the entity interacting with LWS is a human?
14:37:22 <termontwouter> acoburn: No, I would not specify it, but leave it open
14:37:28 <elf-pavlik> see https://w3c.github.io/lws-protocol/lws10-core/#conformance
14:37:56 <termontwouter> jeremycaine: We need to discuss this, since I don't think we have the same opinion about this
14:38:08 <termontwouter> laurens: I think we indeed need to reiterate on the terminology a bit
14:38:23 <laurens> ack elf-pavlik
14:38:23 <Zakim> elf-pavlik, you wanted to mention user/agent != resource owner
14:38:25 <termontwouter> ... for example, a user could also be a group or organization
14:38:52 <acoburn> rrsagent, make minutes
14:38:53 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/07/13-lws-minutes.html acoburn
14:38:59 <termontwouter> elf-pavlik: When talking about users, we often mean the end-user, but sometimes also the resource owner ...
14:39:26 <termontwouter> ... and there is the question of whether an AI agent can bear any legal responsibility towards its interactions
14:39:46 <termontwouter> ... so I think we need to add some more nuance to the conformance section
14:40:28 <termontwouter> jeremycaine: So far we got the LWS client defined, but it would be simpler if the scope was merely the LWS server, and the client could be simply anything interacting with it.
14:40:31 <elf-pavlik> q+ to dive into conformance classes
14:40:40 <termontwouter> ... So shall we have a bit more debate in the PR?
14:40:47 <termontwouter> laurens: yes
14:40:48 <laurens> ack elf-pavlik
14:40:48 <Zakim> elf-pavlik, you wanted to dive into conformance classes
14:41:06 <termontwouter> ... everyong is encouraged to provide feedback, so hopefully we can vote on it next week
14:41:18 <acoburn> s/everyong/everyone/
14:41:27 <termontwouter> elf-pavlik: It does not have to be perfect and complete in this PR
14:42:35 <termontwouter> ... We need to work on the component classes (for example the IDP as well) in the conformance section more explicitly
14:42:49 <termontwouter> ... LWS server and LWS client might be too generic
14:43:15 <jeswr> q+
14:43:19 <termontwouter> jeremycaine: I feel like LWS client stays, then the user has to be human
14:43:25 <laurens> ack jeswr
14:43:43 <termontwouter> jeswr: I think we need agent in that section
14:44:19 <termontwouter> ... Apart from traditional scenarios with a human users, there also will be interaction with LWS servers by agentic AI systems
14:44:52 <termontwouter> ... In this context, the user can be a human but also some other software-based agent operating on behalf of a human
14:45:15 <termontwouter> ... Which I would not consider a client, but rather think of it as a secretary acting on my behalf
14:45:35 <laurens> q+
14:45:48 <elf-pavlik> q+ to ask jeswr which normative statements would have that Agent as subject
14:45:56 <termontwouter> jeremycaine: I understand, but the LWS specifies requests and responses
14:46:17 <termontwouter> jeswr: About users, in a typical interaction the browser is the client
14:46:40 <termontwouter> ... but in an agentic session the client might be an AI agent instead
14:46:56 <termontwouter> jeremycaine: Do we need any specific terminology for this?
14:47:05 <termontwouter> jeswr: yes
14:47:18 <TallTed> TallTed has joined #lws
14:47:31 <laurens> ack laurens
14:47:38 <termontwouter> laurens: yes, the distinction might be about an MCP client interacting as LWS client
14:47:42 <acoburn> q+
14:47:46 <elf-pavlik> +1 to separate
14:48:08 <acoburn> https://w3c.github.io/lws-protocol/lws10-core/#terminology
14:48:12 <termontwouter> acoburn: We already have agent terminology in the current published draft
14:48:22 <laurens> ack elf-pavlik
14:48:22 <Zakim> elf-pavlik, you wanted to ask jeswr which normative statements would have that Agent as subject
14:48:24 <termontwouter> laurens: I think we need to merge main to this PR first
14:48:43 <termontwouter> elf-pavlik: I would suggest not to aim for perfection
14:48:52 <termontwouter> ... the PR already makes several improvements
14:49:09 <termontwouter> ... if anything changes later, we can still update the diagrams later
14:49:27 <laurens> rrsagent, draft minutes
14:49:28 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/07/13-lws-minutes.html laurens
14:49:40 <termontwouter> ... @jeswr, would there be specific tests for AI agents?
14:49:57 <termontwouter> jeswr: We don't have tests for users, so no; we only have tests for clients
14:50:35 <TallTed> present+
14:50:38 <termontwouter> ... We should take into account in the test that the user's ID can either be the same or different from that of the client
14:50:59 <termontwouter> elf-pavlik: There are possible cases where the server can act as a client
14:51:06 <laurens> ack acoburn
14:51:30 <elf-pavlik> e.g., to access protected group listing when enforcing access based on that list
14:51:40 <termontwouter> laurens: In the interest of time, I would encourage everyone to add feedback to this PR, once it is up to date with the main branch
14:52:59 <laurens> zakim, open agendum 6
14:52:59 <Zakim> agendum 6 -- Discuss: Consolidate ConNeg requirements into the LWS Media Type Section (#190 - -> https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/190
14:53:01 <Zakim> ... https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/pull/190 ) -- taken up [from agendabot]
14:53:31 <termontwouter> ... Let's jump to the next agenda item about conneg consolidation
14:53:55 <termontwouter> eBremer: @acoburn made the comment that this is not really about content negotiation
14:54:12 <termontwouter> ... Can people chime in on that?
14:54:21 <laurens> q?
14:54:24 <termontwouter> laurens: Let's do that by next week
14:54:43 <termontwouter> ... Given the time, let's close off
14:54:50 <laurens> zakim, open agendum 7
14:54:50 <Zakim> agendum 7 -- Github Issue Triage -- taken up [from agendabot]
14:55:08 <termontwouter> acoburn: Thank you everyone for attending the Friday triage meetings
14:55:52 <termontwouter> ... For those issues with the 'proposed-close' label, please make a comment on them by the end of the week
14:56:23 <laurens> rrsagent, draft minutes
14:56:24 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/07/13-lws-minutes.html laurens
14:57:15 <TallTed> https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/issues/?q=is%3Aissue%20state%3Aopen%20label%3Apropose-close
14:57:22 <TallTed> RRSAgent, draft minutes
14:57:24 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/07/13-lws-minutes.html TallTed