Chatlog 2009-07-14

From SPARQL Working Group
Jump to: navigation, search

See original RRSAgent log and preview nicely formatted version.

Please justify/explain all edits to this page, in your "edit summary" text.

13:26:16 <KjetilK> wow, LeeF is here!
13:58:33 <AndyS> zakim, this is sparql
13:58:33 <Zakim> ok, AndyS; that matches SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM
13:59:06 <Zakim> + +539149aacc
13:59:19 <Zakim> +??P28
13:59:31 <AxelPolleres> Zakim, aacc is probably me
13:59:31 <Zakim> +AxelPolleres; got it
13:59:34 <AndyS> zakim, ??P28 is me
13:59:34 <Zakim> +AndyS; got it
13:59:58 <pgearon> I didn't see it when I came on a couple of minutes ago
14:00:05 <Zakim> +??P30
14:00:09 <bijan> zakim, ??p30 is me
14:00:09 <Zakim> +bijan; got it
14:00:13 <Zakim> +??P31
14:00:21 <AlexPassant> Zakim, ??P31 is me
14:00:21 <Zakim> +AlexPassant; got it
14:00:40 <Zakim> +??P34
14:00:44 <AxelPolleres> Zakim, who's on the phone?
14:00:44 <Zakim> On the phone I see +1.518.276.aaaa, +1.312.863.aabb, AxelPolleres, AndyS, bijan, AlexPassant, ??P34
14:01:02 <Zakim> + +1.937.775.aadd
14:01:10 <kasei> Zakim, aaaa is me
14:01:10 <Zakim> +kasei; got it
14:01:13 <LukeWM> +??P34 is LukeWM
14:01:16 <Prateek> +Prateek
14:01:19 <Zakim> +??P36
14:01:19 <LukeWM> zakim, +??P34 is LukeWM
14:01:23 <Zakim> sorry, LukeWM, I do not recognize a party named '+??P34'
14:01:31 <KjetilK> Zakim, ??P36 is me
14:01:34 <Prateek> Zakim +1.937.775.aadd is Prateek
14:01:39 <Zakim> +KjetilK; got it
14:01:43 <AxelPolleres> zakim, P34 is KjetilK
14:01:53 <Zakim> + +1.919.200.aaee
14:01:59 <Zakim> sorry, AxelPolleres, I do not recognize a party named 'P34'
14:02:13 <AxelPolleres> Zakim, ??P36 is LukeWM
14:02:19 <IvanHerman> zakim, dial IvanHerman-voip
14:02:25 <KjetilK> Zakim, mute me
14:02:27 <Zakim> -??P34
14:02:36 <Zakim> I already had ??P36 as KjetilK, AxelPolleres
14:02:46 <Zakim> ok, IvanHerman; the call is being made
14:02:48 <Zakim> +Ivan
14:02:57 <Zakim> KjetilK should now be muted
14:03:12 <AxelPolleres> Zakim, who is on the phone
14:03:13 <Zakim> +??P43
14:03:18 <Zakim> I don't understand 'who is on the phone', AxelPolleres
14:03:24 <IvanHerman> zakim, who is here?
14:03:26 <AxelPolleres> Zakim, who is on the phone?
14:03:30 <KjetilK> AxelPolleres, I can hear you :-)
14:03:34 <LukeWM> zakim, ??P43 is LukeWM
14:03:34 <Zakim> On the phone I see kasei, +1.312.863.aabb, AxelPolleres, AndyS, bijan, AlexPassant, +1.937.775.aadd, KjetilK (muted), +1.919.200.aaee, Ivan, ??P43
14:03:38 <Zakim> On the phone I see kasei, +1.312.863.aabb, AxelPolleres, AndyS, bijan, AlexPassant, +1.937.775.aadd, KjetilK (muted), +1.919.200.aaee, Ivan, ??P43
14:03:40 <Zakim> On IRC I see Prateek, SimonKJ, Zakim, LukeWM, bijan, AxelPolleres, LeeF, AndyS, pgearon, IvanMikhailov, IvanHerman, karl, KjetilK, AlexPassant, kasei, ericP, trackbot
14:03:45 <Zakim> +LukeWM; got it
14:04:12 <SimonKJ> zakim, +1.919.200.aaee is SimonKJ
14:04:17 <IvanHerman> zakim, aabb is pgearon
14:04:18 <Zakim> +SimonKJ; got it
14:04:22 <Zakim> +pgearon; got it
14:04:29 <IvanHerman> zakim, who is here?
14:04:33 <Zakim> On the phone I see kasei, pgearon, AxelPolleres, AndyS, bijan, AlexPassant, +1.937.775.aadd, KjetilK (muted), SimonKJ, Ivan, LukeWM
14:04:35 <AxelPolleres> Zakim, who is on the phone?
14:04:38 <Prateek> Zakim, +1.937.775.aadd is Prateek
14:04:40 <Zakim> On the phone I see kasei, pgearon, AxelPolleres, AndyS, bijan, AlexPassant, +1.937.775.aadd, KjetilK (muted), SimonKJ, Ivan, LukeWM
14:04:46 <Zakim> On IRC I see Prateek, SimonKJ, Zakim, LukeWM, bijan, AxelPolleres, LeeF, AndyS, pgearon, IvanMikhailov, IvanHerman, karl, KjetilK, AlexPassant, kasei, ericP, trackbot
14:04:48 <Zakim> +Prateek; got it
14:04:50 <AxelPolleres> Zakim, who is on the phone?
14:04:55 <Zakim> On the phone I see kasei, pgearon, AxelPolleres, AndyS, bijan, AlexPassant, Prateek, KjetilK (muted), SimonKJ, Ivan, LukeWM
14:05:01 <IvanHerman> scribe: IvanHerman
14:05:02 <AxelPolleres> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Agenda-2009-07-14
14:05:05 <IvanHerman> scribenick: IvanHerman
14:05:35 <IvanHerman> regrets: Lee, Steve, EricP
14:06:05 <Zakim> + +01212803aaff
14:06:05 <IvanHerman> Topic: last week
14:06:21 <IvanHerman> axel: there was discussion on minus/not exist
14:06:29 <IvanHerman> ... the idea was to go on on the list
14:06:34 <IvanMikhailov> Zakim, +01212803aaff is me
14:06:34 <Zakim> +IvanMikhailov; got it
14:06:41 <IvanHerman> ... but we planned to look at update, for example,
14:06:52 <IvanHerman> ... and get tot he status of writing
14:07:00 <AxelPolleres> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2009-07-07
14:07:02 <IvanHerman> AxelPolleres: admin, meeting minutes approval
14:07:13 <IvanHerman> ... any questions, missing
14:07:29 <IvanHerman> AndyS: there was some comments form simon
14:07:40 <IvanHerman> ... they are not in the minutes
14:07:53 <IvanHerman> ... (Simon Johnson)
14:08:03 <IvanHerman> AxelPolleres: simon, would you write a mail to ammend the minutes 
14:08:20 <kasei> Zakim, mute me
14:08:20 <Zakim> kasei should now be muted
14:08:31 <IvanHerman> AxelPolleres: andy, could you tell us quicklyu
14:08:47 <IvanHerman> AndyS: simon suggested to look at the use cases to direct our decisions
14:08:56 <IvanHerman> ... this point did not make it in the minutes
14:09:06 <IvanHerman> AxelPolleres: we can amend the minutes
14:09:40 <IvanHerman> AndyS: there is now a record on this meeting, and there was no action item, so it might be o.k.
14:09:59 <IvanHerman> SimonKJ: I can also send a mail to the list to have it duly recorded
14:10:04 <AxelPolleres> ACTION: SimonKJ to send a mail with comment on the minutes.
14:10:04 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - SimonKJ
14:10:38 <AxelPolleres> PROPOSED: approve minutes http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2009-07-07
14:10:50 <AxelPolleres> RESOLVED: approve minutes http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2009-07-07
14:11:11 <IvanHerman> Topic: next meeting
14:11:17 <IvanHerman> AxelPolleres: next week,
14:11:24 <IvanHerman> ... steve should be the scribe
14:11:40 <IvanHerman> Topic: admin issue
14:11:50 <IvanHerman> AxelPolleres: team is working on the charter
14:12:09 <IvanHerman> ... it is a copy past of the proposed features
14:12:14 <IvanHerman> ... that we have identified
14:12:28 <IvanHerman> ... the important thing that the schedule is quite tight
14:12:39 <IvanHerman> ... we should have a fpwd by September (ideally)
14:12:49 <IvanHerman> ... the next few weeks should be dedicated to make this happen
14:13:26 <IvanHerman> IvanHerman: difference between prev. charter and new charter: update is now a separate document.
14:13:32 <AndyS> q+ to seek clarification of scope of FPWD
14:14:41 <IvanHerman> AndyS: separate protocol and update docs?
14:14:51 <IvanHerman> IvanHerman: we can leave that undefined
14:14:57 <IvanHerman> ... for the moment.
14:15:14 <Zakim> +??P1
14:15:28 <IvanHerman> AndyS: where does service descriptions fit in?
14:16:05 <IvanHerman> IvanHerman: i essentially copy/pasted the items from the f&R items, so it is there.
14:16:10 <AndyS> ack AndyS
14:16:10 <Zakim> AndyS, you wanted to seek clarification of scope of FPWD
14:16:42 <IvanHerman> IvanHerman: plan to send to charter to W3M today to discuss it now or next week latest.
14:17:10 <IvanHerman> Topic: liaisons?
14:17:13 <bijan> Not from OWL
14:17:14 <IvanHerman> AxelPolleres: any news?
14:17:19 <IvanHerman> orri: nothing
14:17:20 <ericP> nothing from HCLS
14:17:26 <IvanHerman> AxelPolleres: from rif, nothing
14:17:30 <AlexPassant> nothing from socialweb
14:17:52 <bijan> I am
14:17:55 <bijan> Nothing to report
14:18:08 <IvanHerman> Topic: action records
14:18:15 <AxelPolleres> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/track/
14:18:33 <IvanHerman> AxelPolleres: few open actions, some old ones
14:19:00 <IvanHerman> ... action 16, 19: small changes on the minutes 
14:19:16 <kasei> yes, 51 can be closed
14:19:27 <IvanHerman> ... action 51, to flesh out service descriptions proposal
14:19:29 <kasei> though there hasn't been any discussion yet :)
14:19:49 <AndyS> action 41 is the minutes one, not 16, 19
14:19:49 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - 41
14:20:05 <IvanHerman> topic: discussion on update
14:20:18 <IvanHerman> AxelPolleres: the general idea would be to recap what we said at the f2f
14:20:22 <IvanHerman> ... we raised several issues
14:20:33 <IvanHerman> ... start with the sparql update member submission
14:20:46 <IvanHerman> ... there are some questions whether any more alternatives should be considered
14:20:57 <IvanHerman> ... we came tot he conclusions that we also want a RESTful interface
14:21:05 <IvanHerman> ... that can also be discussed in this telcom
14:21:22 <AndyS>  http://www.w3.org/Submission/SPARQL-Update/
14:21:46 <IvanHerman> AxelPolleres: i do not know whether anybody had a closer look again
14:21:59 <IvanHerman> ... if there are some comments on the submission at this point
14:22:13 <IvanHerman> (everybody silent...)
14:22:33 <Zakim> + +1.216.445.aagg
14:22:35 <IvanHerman> AxelPolleres: the simplest way to be is to start with that document and put in the issues that we discussed
14:22:41 <john-l> Zakim, aagg is me
14:22:42 <Zakim> +john-l; got it
14:22:49 <IvanHerman> ... and then to hammer out as we go along
14:23:09 <IvanHerman> AxelPolleres: we collected some issues on update in general
14:23:23 <IvanHerman> ... there was already some discussions on alternatives
14:23:35 <AndyS> The Issues raised were 18-29
14:23:39 <IvanHerman> ... let us start with issue 18
14:23:50 <AxelPolleres> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/track/issues/18
14:24:05 <IvanHerman> AxelPolleres: issue on concurrency in update
14:24:13 <IvanHerman> ... any opinion on what we should/could do?
14:24:23 <pgearon> +q
14:24:26 <IvanHerman> ... anybody remembers the concrete points to open this issue?
14:24:44 <IvanHerman> pgearon: i do not remember the original point, was wondering about transactionality of updates
14:24:59 <IvanHerman> ... the ARQ implementation has some commented out code in the java files
14:25:25 <IvanHerman> Orri: we do it in our implementations, it is available on virtuoso
14:25:47 <IvanHerman> (scribe has difficulties understaning orri)
14:26:03 <AndyS> Orri: hard to mandate transactions
14:26:12 <AndyS> Orri: maybe optional feature
14:26:13 <IvanHerman> ... i do not think it is good to require this for the implementations, it is better to make it optional
14:26:36 <IvanHerman> AndyS: what paul is referring to is not in the submission at all
14:27:04 <IvanHerman> ... we had some discussions, it got taken out because transactionality is meaningless or difficult to implement in a proper way
14:27:23 <IvanHerman> ... there is no transaction mechanism to leverage on multiple operations
14:27:44 <IvanHerman> ... i do not think we should address the issue of transactions on more http calls, it is just too complicated
14:28:00 <IvanHerman> AxelPolleres: you said that it is not covered in the current submission
14:28:29 <AndyS> The submission suggests that operations should be atomic.
14:28:35 <IvanHerman> Orri: i do not think it is justified to say more about it here
14:28:40 <IvanHerman> ... it is an implementation thing
14:28:53 <IvanHerman> ... we should not go into this here
14:29:13 <AxelPolleres> Andy, you mean we don't talk really abotu transactions, but just atomicity.
14:29:21 <IvanHerman> AndyS: i would not talk about transactions because it will bring in a lot of things and questions that we will not address with the time scale we have
14:29:22 <pgearon> Mulgara has transactions, but I've dropped it in the context of HTTP support. That said, I do use them to make operations atomic
14:30:05 <KjetilK> +1 on atomicity on one HTTP call, and not deal with multiple HTTP calls
14:30:22 <IvanHerman> AxelPolleres: we seem to agree that we do not want to deal with any higher transactions at all
14:30:28 <IvanHerman> ... do we need to make it more explicit?
14:30:58 <IvanHerman> (scribe has again serious difficulties understanding orri:-(
14:31:32 <Zakim> -??P1
14:32:09 <Zakim> +??P1
14:32:12 <IvanHerman> AndyS: the agenda suggested to collect independent reviewers and look at the proposal
14:32:27 <IvanHerman> AxelPolleres: yes, true, let us go through the issues first and see
14:32:33 <AndyS> zakim, ??P1 is orri
14:32:33 <Zakim> +orri; got it
14:33:20 <IvanHerman> orri: it is the experiecne when we use update we mostly use in a way that that a single request goes to the millions of tirples, and doing this with transactional that would be unrealistic
14:33:31 <IvanHerman> ... experience shows that trans. are not really desired
14:33:33 <SimonKJ> +1 on atomicity on one HTTP call (that's how our HTTP update API works)
14:33:37 <IvanHerman> s/tirples/triples/
14:33:55 <IvanHerman> orri: this is just an observation from our usage history
14:34:25 <AndyS> we already have concurrency - overload that
14:34:42 <IvanHerman> orri: you could specify in the protocol that you want it atomic, and if not, you get half  transactions
14:34:51 <IvanHerman> ... that should be possible
14:35:03 <IvanHerman> ... what implementations would do beyond that is their stuff
14:35:07 <IvanHerman> ... not to be standardized
14:35:20 <IvanHerman> AxelPolleres: one more issue whether we make atomicity of the update optional or not
14:35:25 <IvanHerman> ... is this something we can agree on
14:35:33 <AndyS> q+
14:35:57 <AxelPolleres> ACTION: Orri to mail on ISSUE of atomicity of updates.
14:35:57 <trackbot> Created ACTION-52 - Mail on ISSUE of atomicity of updates. [on Orri Erling - due 2009-07-21].
14:36:11 <AxelPolleres> ack pgearon
14:36:13 <pgearon> ack pgearon
14:36:26 <IvanMikhailov> My $0.02 re. transactions is that user's don't know enough about them so they can create huge transaction images just by mistake. So the safe default should be "no transactionality".
14:36:27 <IvanHerman> <AndyS> talking about agreeing things
14:36:27 <KjetilK> ack AndyS
14:36:39 <IvanHerman> ... until we see the whole thing we should not agree on anything
14:36:40 <SimonKJ> q+
14:37:08 <IvanHerman> orri: transactions are very complicated, let us not get there
14:37:33 <IvanHerman> SimonKJ: if we can find some ways of simplifying things that would do ourselves a big favor
14:37:57 <AxelPolleres> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/track/issues/open
14:38:21 <IvanHerman> AxelPolleres: we have not talked about concurrencey
14:38:27 <IvanHerman> ... this issue may be on the protocol level
14:38:35 <IvanHerman> ... (issue 18)
14:38:46 <IvanHerman> <AxelPolleres: issue 19, several discussions on security issues
14:39:03 <AxelPolleres> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2009AprJun/0302.html
14:39:34 <AxelPolleres> insert per reference raises
14:39:36 <IvanHerman> AxelPolleres: this mail indicates that this issue is concerned whether we allow insert and update per reference to URIS, and whether this has security issues
14:39:48 <IvanHerman> Orri: we do not have a security model to begin with...
14:39:59 <IvanHerman> AxelPolleres: i think steve was concerned about this
14:40:01 <LukeWM> q+
14:40:11 <IvanHerman> orri: what is an update per reference?
14:40:13 <IvanMikhailov> I'm implementing SPARQL security now in Virtuoso but I don't have _good_ security model either.
14:40:28 <KjetilK> Zakim, unmute me
14:40:28 <Zakim> KjetilK should no longer be muted
14:40:29 <IvanHerman> AxelPolleres: insert <URI> where <URI> is a reference to a dataset
14:40:41 <KjetilK> q+ to say that's not how I understand it
14:40:41 <AxelPolleres> ack SimonKJ
14:40:54 <IvanHerman> SimonKJ: i think we said the server would have some security model
14:41:07 <IvanHerman> .. the protocol describes what happens if that is violated
14:41:16 <IvanHerman> ... it was tough for us to come up with one model
14:41:26 <IvanHerman> ... we described what the error conditions would be
14:41:40 <IvanHerman> ... the security model is something that gets very complex
14:42:06 <AxelPolleres> ack LukeWM
14:42:28 <IvanHerman> LukeWM: spoke to steve, he was not completely against the update per reference, he just said there might be security issues with it
14:42:47 <AxelPolleres> ack KjetilK
14:42:47 <Zakim> KjetilK, you wanted to say that's not how I understand it
14:43:00 <IvanHerman> KjetilK: we should distinguish whether the URI is a graph name or a file
14:43:09 <IvanHerman> ... the security is not an insert graph
14:43:31 <KjetilK> Zakim, mute me
14:43:31 <Zakim> KjetilK should now be muted
14:43:52 <IvanHerman> AxelPolleres: i would suggest to go through the other issues
14:44:01 <IvanHerman> ... we do not have any new revelations on the security...
14:44:15 <AxelPolleres> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/track/issues/20
14:44:17 <IvanHerman> AxelPolleres: issue 20,
14:44:17 <AndyS> q+ to ask about the agenda
14:44:58 <IvanHerman> AndyS: in the agenda it says 'start discussing' there
14:45:14 <IvanHerman> ... the idea was to have independent reviewers
14:45:47 <IvanHerman> AxelPolleres: two more issues: allow more complex operations (eg, change)
14:45:51 <AndyS> also, the suggestion was to ask for strawman for protocol side
14:46:04 <IvanHerman> ... that should have a close look at the update doc and decide which ones
14:46:46 <IvanHerman> ... the other issue is whether we need update wsdl version of the protocol with respect to update
14:46:51 <IvanHerman> (issues 21, and 22)
14:47:10 <IvanHerman> AxelPolleres: we should have some more independent reviews of the sparql update submission
14:47:15 <IvanHerman> ... to get things going
14:47:21 <LukeWM> q+
14:47:26 <AndyS> ack me
14:47:26 <Zakim> AndyS, you wanted to ask about the agenda
14:47:26 <IvanHerman> ... to identify things that might be missing
14:48:02 <IvanHerman> LukeWM: we can do a review with Steve
14:48:06 <IvanHerman> ... when is the deadline?
14:48:29 <IvanHerman> AxelPolleres: as soon as possible... next telco?
14:48:36 <IvanHerman> LukeWM: i volunteer a week
14:48:56 <ericP> review for what parameters?
14:49:04 <AxelPolleres> ACTION: Luke to review SPAQRL update submission
14:49:04 <trackbot> Created ACTION-53 - Review SPAQRL update submission [on Luke Wilson-Mawer - due 2009-07-21].
14:49:10 <AlexPassant> I'll review it
14:49:12 <SimonKJ> I can volunteer some IBM help
14:49:27 <ericP> do implementations count as reviews?
14:49:31 <IvanHerman> action: AlexPassant to review SPARQL Update submisson
14:49:32 <trackbot> Created ACTION-54 - Review SPARQL Update submisson [on Alexandre Passant - due 2009-07-21].
14:49:54 <AndyS> Lighter weight, if it helps, just emails on specific points to the list would be good - I can collect them together.
14:50:03 <IvanHerman> action: SimonKJ to review SPARQL update submission
14:50:03 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - SimonKJ
14:50:24 <LukeWM> q+
14:51:11 <pgearon> +q
14:51:34 <IvanHerman> LukeWM: steve is on the proposal, so me being a reviewer may not be independent...
14:51:44 <IvanHerman> ack LukeWM
14:51:56 <IvanHerman> AxelPolleres: we have two independent ones, so it is o.k.
14:52:10 <KjetilK> ack pgearon
14:52:15 <IvanHerman> pgearon: getting back to the agenda, are there other alternatives to consider?
14:52:24 <IvanHerman> ... it was on the agenda
14:52:50 <IvanHerman> AxelPolleres: in discussions i had the impression that there is an agreement in the group that sparql update submission is a good basis
14:53:23 <IvanHerman> ... it would be nice to get a summary from the submittors on whether there are features that had not been added
14:53:54 <IvanHerman> ... anybody from the submittors who would like to summarize this?
14:54:08 <AlexPassant> SPARQL++ (from ARC2) do not have much differences with SPARUL in terms of update features
14:54:17 <IvanHerman> AndyS: there might be more differences as we move forward
14:54:40 <pgearon> +q
14:54:43 <IvanHerman> AndyS: most of what i remember is in syntax
14:54:51 <KjetilK> The only issue we've had with SPARUL I posted about here: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2009AprJun/0315.html
14:55:13 <IvanHerman> pgearon: I do notice that we have been talking about the sparul, but we also need to consider how sparul will affect the protocol
14:55:44 <IvanHerman> ... i do not think that has been considered
14:56:04 <IvanHerman> ... we looked at the restful part but not the effects of sparul ont he protocol
14:56:23 <IvanHerman> pgearon: the protocol says use get for a query and a post for large queries
14:56:35 <IvanHerman> ... we will have to exclude get for delete or insert, for examples
14:56:48 <IvanHerman> ... we need to use the appropriate http methods
14:57:01 <IvanHerman> ... the current protocol will not be appropriate for our needs
14:57:10 <IvanHerman> ... it may not directly fit into rest
14:57:21 <IvanHerman> AxelPolleres: that mandates a new issue?
14:57:59 <IvanHerman> pgearon: yes, I think so; we have to say that if you do an updated you should not use get, etc. It may not be a big issue, but it has to be said
14:58:15 <AxelPolleres> ISSUE: implications of updates on protocol, regarding HTP methods
14:58:15 <trackbot> Created ISSUE-32 - Implications of updates on protocol, regarding HTP methods ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/track/issues/32/edit .
14:58:46 <IvanHerman> AndyS: a related issue, we found it useful to have different endpoints for query and update, because we can apply different security methods for the two
14:58:52 <IvanHerman> AxelPolleres: would you require that?
14:59:03 <KjetilK> +1 to that
14:59:03 <pgearon> We've done the same thing
14:59:10 <IvanHerman> AndyS: that is only the experience we had, two endpoint make things easier
14:59:30 <pgearon> though our "updating" endpoint also allows queries on it
14:59:36 <SimonKJ> +1 for the two endpoint comment
15:00:10 <KjetilK> q+
15:00:24 <SimonKJ> q+
15:00:25 <IvanHerman> AxelPolleres: we had one more agenda item: anybody would start on the restful part of the update
15:00:30 <pgearon> ack pgearon
15:00:33 <KjetilK> ack em
15:00:35 <KjetilK> ack me
15:00:53 <pgearon> Zakim, ack me
15:00:54 <Zakim> I see SimonKJ on the speaker queue
15:01:00 <IvanHerman> KjetilK: do we want to have a summary of the different proposals 
15:01:17 <IvanHerman> AxelPolleres: there has been different discussions on the protocol
15:01:32 <IvanHerman> ... the question is whether we could find something that we could put out as a strawman
15:01:41 <IvanHerman> KjetilK: there seems to be 3 different directions now
15:01:53 <AxelPolleres> ACTION: paul to summarize ISSUE-32
15:01:53 <trackbot> Created ACTION-55 - Summarize ISSUE-32 [on Paul Gearon - due 2009-07-21].
15:01:57 <IvanHerman> 1. use what can be used with delete and post
15:02:40 <KjetilK> 1. specify what can be done simply with PUT, POST and DELETE
15:02:50 <KjetilK> 2. Add a graph parameter of some sort
15:02:58 <KjetilK> 3. The IBM proposal
15:03:23 <IvanHerman> KjetilK: I can write down these things more concretely in a mail
15:03:43 <IvanHerman> ... if I get online from my mobile from my vacations:-)
15:03:50 <IvanHerman> AxelPolleres: that would be great
15:04:12 <pgearon> I need to note that I can't commit to a due date of 2009-07-21. I can only commit to 2009-07-28
15:04:24 <AxelPolleres> ACTION: Kjetil to summarize RESTFul options for update.
15:04:24 <trackbot> Created ACTION-56 - Summarize RESTFul options for update. [on Kjetil Kjernsmo - due 2009-07-21].
15:04:51 <IvanHerman> --- meeting adjurned ---
15:04:52 <Zakim> -bijan
15:04:55 <AndyS> Thanks all
15:04:59 <AlexPassant> thanks
15:05:02 <Zakim> -orri
15:05:04 <SimonKJ> thanks
15:05:05 <Zakim> -john-l
15:05:06 <Zakim> -kasei
15:05:07 <LukeWM> thanks
15:05:08 <Zakim> -AlexPassant
15:05:14 <Zakim> -Prateek
15:05:15 <AndyS> Regrets next week: Paul Gearon
15:05:29 <Zakim> -LukeWM
15:05:41 <Zakim> -IvanMikhailov
15:05:48 <Zakim> -pgearon
15:05:51 <AxelPolleres> ACTION: SimonKJ to add on Kjetil's proposal
15:05:51 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - SimonKJ
15:05:54 <IvanMikhailov> ups...
15:06:19 <AxelPolleres> ACTION: Axel to draft minutes
15:06:19 <trackbot> Created ACTION-57 - Draft minutes [on Axel Polleres - due 2009-07-21].
15:06:32 <AxelPolleres> Zakim, list attendees
15:06:32 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been +1.518.276.aaaa, +1.312.863.aabb, +539149aacc, AxelPolleres, AndyS, bijan, AlexPassant, kasei, KjetilK, IvanHerman, LukeWM, SimonKJ, pgearon, IvanMikhailov
15:06:36 <Zakim> ... Prateek, IvanMikhailov, +1.216.445.aagg, john-l, orri
# SPECIAL MARKER FOR CHATSYNC.  DO NOT EDIT THIS LINE OR BELOW.  SRCLINESUSED=00000409