Warning:
This wiki has been archived and is now read-only.
Chatlog 2009-07-14
From SPARQL Working Group
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