See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 09 July 2012
<dret> list participants
<steve> 'steve' is Steve Battle - just joined the WG - hello all.
<AndyS1> Hi Steve
<kalpa> how can I get to know my conference phone number to let know Zakim?
<Yves> -/me waves
<Yves> s/-\/me waves//
<kalpa> zakim aacc is me
<ghard> Cheers Yves ;)
<SteveS> +1 for meetings
<bblfish> was not there
<bblfish> but read it
<SteveS> +1 for minutes
Minutes are approved
<Yves> close ACTION-2
<trackbot> ACTION-2 Set up commonscribe closed
next meeting 23 July
TPAC to be used for f2f
<bblfish> ah btw. I think it would be good for the WebID Community Group and the Read Write Web Community Group to meet with this group too
<ghard> bblfish indeed a good idea
volunteers for hosting a meeintg in US
in the same time as TPAC
by the end of August we should define the exact details
<bblfish> oops could I mention something on this topic?
<Yves> (note, planned time for TPAC for ldp should be nov 1 and 2)
<AndyS1> "RDF Simple Data Interface Protocol - Level Zero" http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/REST (from Sandro)
this is already almost in the specs...
level 0 - get and put
not in level 0 - questions and possible solutions
for example PATCH
Arnaud: is it higher level than the graph store prootocol?
Sandro: SDI is more abstract
<AndyS1> (Henry Story speaking)
<steve> 'steve' is steve battle - on the phone also
Henry: I think it would be good for the WebID Community Group and the Read Write Web Community Group to meet with this group too
<bblfish> it's good to see many very similar proposals
Henry: also to organize a hackathon in Lyon
these groups are overlapping
<bblfish> ok, will do
Arnaud: send a mail about these ideas
<SteveS> +1 to bblfish's proposals
<oberger> Zakim: +??P17 is probably me
Richard: collection resources are existing in your domain or new ones?
<oberger> thx MacTed
<oberger> sorry for late arrival (visiting my doctor :-/)
Richard: a resource can be in several collections, how do you manage this?
<sandro> cygri: more Not in Level Zero: (1) removing things from a collection (is it the same as deleting), and (2) signaling what kinds of properties a new resource can/should have.
<oberger> ericP: thx, obvious, but was in too much hurry
Richard: can a client learn in advance what properties should be defined before inserting a new resource?
Sandro: these are for future considerations
<sandro> sandro: Have you tried putting this list into the tracker, or the list in the charter?
<oberger> ericP: s/OSCL/OSLC/
Does existing specs cover any of the issues?
<bblfish> of course it helps to implement it to know what the issues are
issue numbers can be put into emails
<Zakim> ericP, you wanted to ask if the LDBP UC&R <http://www.w3.org/Submission/2012/SUBM-ldbpucr-20120326/> were motivated by OSLC
<oberger> wb Arnaud
<MacTed> ericP - those are already here -- http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Use_Cases_And_Requirements
<MacTed> and somewhat expanded already...
Steve: some of the UC are from OSLC and they could be expanded
<oberger> http://www.w3.org/Submission/2012/SUBM-ldbpucr-20120326/#oslc obviously is labeled purposely ? ;)
Arnaud: please contribute to http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Use_Cases_And_Requirements
<oberger> SteveS: ;-)
Henry: details come up when they start implementing the proposal
but it will be totally re-written probably...
Steve: implementation is coming
<oberger> maybe that would be interesting to list in a page
<mhausenblas> +1 to Andy's point re what does EAI in this context mean (and how it is enabled through our work)
Andy: how it enables integration based on UC? IBM could comment
<Arnaud> sorry can you hear me?
<ArthurK> +1 to Andy's point about EAI
<Arnaud> dret, please, take over :-/
<Arnaud> my phone died somehow
<Zakim> mhausenblas, you wanted to ask re getting a quick overview on the overall direction
<oberger> SteveS: sounds reasonable
Michael: who would object to go forward with IBM submission?
<cygri> what do you mean by "go forward"?
<oberger> I'm not sure I understood what mhausenblas opinion is WRT to the submission... but maybe he hasn't mentioned ;)
<bblfish> Michael is asking for a straw poll on who is generally positive about the IBM submission or who is more on something else
<mhausenblas> Michael: as someone involved both in the chartering and supporting the IBM submission I agree with Eric
<MacTed> +1 sandro ... with those "concern points" being an easy list of issues to start into the Tracker
telling the world this is what we're doing
<bblfish> sounds like a good idea, it will force much more careful reading
<oberger> unless if done during time when too many people are on vacation ?
publish current submission as first draft?
summertime may not be the best period
<bblfish> yes, the question is good: if we think what would it be if we were to publish the IBM draft as a working draft - makes one focus
<ericP> Low Level use cas
<oberger> ericP: OSLC-CM could provide guidance on that particular one
how to solve this using the current submission?
<SteveS> ericP this is already covered in LDBP as 5.4.8 http://www.w3.org/Submission/ldbp/#bpc-HTTP_POST but not with this example specifically
Plenty of work to do: use cases, comments on submission, etc.
<oberger> when's next time ?
<SteveS> so within scope of original submission but maybe needs to be clarified or expanded
<bblfish> great. thanks.
<JohnArwe> next time should be in +2 weeks, based on previous call's decision