W3C

- DRAFT -

Linked Data Platform (LDP) Working Group Teleconference

10 Sep 2012

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Present
+1.845.433.aaaa, Arnaud, +1.510.206.aabb, SteveS, JohnArwe, gavinc, +1.510.698.aacc, MacTed, +1.714.454.aadd, oberger, mhausenblas, bblfish, Sandro, dret, +1.617.324.aaee, Karl, +1.617.324.aaff, Yves, rgarcia, krp, ghard, Ashok_Malhotra, +44.208.573.aagg, RezaBFar, +1.937.775.aahh, jkopecky
Regrets
Chair
Arnaud
Scribe
mhausenblas

Contents


<trackbot> Date: 10 September 2012

<dret> zalim 510 is dret

<dret> zakim aabb is dret

<oberger> hmmm.... am I the only one to not hear anything ?

<SteveS> oberger: I hear Arnaud and other noise

<oberger> noise cancelation at arnaud's ?

<oberger> ok, let's wait

<bblfish> hi

<bblfish> ah I scribed recently...

<scribe> scribenick: mhausenblas

Admin

PROPOSAL: Accept meeting minutes from http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/meeting/2012-08-20

+1

<SteveS> +1

<oberger> no problem +1

PROPOSAL: Accept meeting minutes from http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/meeting/2012-08-27

RESOLUTION: Both meeting minutes have been approved by the WG

Tracking of issues and actions

Issues: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/

Arnaud: Not sure yet how extensive we gonna use it, but worth having a look at it and record them
... Every WG member can raise an issue and once accepted it will be marked as OPEN

<RezaBFar> 714.454.aadd is me. Not sure why Zakim is not recognizing me.

Arnaud: Let's review actions

ACTION-4?

<trackbot> ACTION-4 -- Steve Speicher to review SPARQL Graph Store Protocol and suggest how we should move forward with it -- due 2012-09-12 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/actions/4

<bblfish> I sent a mail out

SteveS: continues - next week, promise

ACTION-5?

<trackbot> ACTION-5 -- Henry Story to add use case for non rdf content addition -- due 2012-07-30 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/actions/5

bblfish: I did send out, yes

<oberger> me can't see any note :-/

<oberger> in http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/actions/5

bblfish: see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2012Sep/0007.html

<bblfish> ok, will do that right after the call

close ACTION-5

<trackbot> ACTION-5 Add use case for non rdf content addition closed

<oberger> mhausenblas, ;-)

<bblfish> I can re-word and put in wiki, then others can edit it

ACTION-6?

<trackbot> ACTION-6 -- Michael Hausenblas to review SDshare -- due 2012-09-17 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/actions/6

<bblfish> you're welcome

Michael: continues - been on vacation
... Graham Moore offered help, will deliver next week

Arnaud: Now we're back to our weekly schedule

… looking at the charter, the schedule says UCR were due in 07/2012, see http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/charter

Arnaud: We need to see to catch-up on these actions
... FPWD are due for 10/2012

… we're slipping behind schedule, so we need to show some progress

<oberger> btw, 1st of november is holiday in France... in case you're coming to Lyon... maybe some disruption of french public services to be expected on location

Arnaud: We need to have more discussions on the mailing list

<oberger> (F2F TPAC)

<Yves> it will be the same service as on a sunday

<oberger> Yves, yes

Arnaud: Use telecons to resolve difficult issues

<Zakim> mhausenblas, you wanted to talk re process

Michael: Agreed re progress but we need to work towards concrete proposals

bblfish: PROPOSAL: Take the Member Submission as a FPWD

<SteveS> +1 to PROPOSAL to move submission to working draft

+1 to the PROPOSAL to move submission to working draft by bblfish

<Zakim> gavinc, you wanted to ask if their is an editor/s?

<SteveS> I have volunteered

gavinc: is there an Editor in sight?

+1

Michael: +1 for editor

<JohnArwe> I can also help

<bblfish> It's always better to have 2 people :-)

Michael: Happy to chime in as well

<oberger> obviously it is if we fallback on using the proposal as a draft ;)

<oberger> (looking like IBM alone ;)

<oberger> mhausenblas, our messages crossed eachother

<bblfish> it's better to have somtehitng to start where we can say: passage x, or y needs to be changed....

<bblfish> respec is cool

<gavinc> respec!

<bblfish> http://webid.info/spec/ used it

<gavinc> http://dev.w3.org/2009/dap/ReSpec.js/documentation.html

<oberger> git

<oberger> that one could be controversial topic for discussion ;)

<bblfish> you can use github, and sync with mercurial

<gavinc> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/linked-data/ ... is that us?

Sandro++ for git

<gavinc> doesn't look like it?

<oberger> is there a DVCS with a REST API ?

no, gavinc

<gavinc> then, no I don't see an hg repo

<Yves> not us

likewise

<bblfish> this is the webid mercurial http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/WebID

<Yves> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg has all the repo

<scribe> ACTION: SteveS to publish member submission as FPWD with support of JohnArwe and mhausenblas [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/09/10-ldp-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - SteveS

<oberger> do we have/need consensus on that next action ?

<ghard> Lost connect. Zakim keeps telling me the conference code's not valid.

<scribe> ACTION: sspeiche to publish member submission as FPWD with support of JohnArwe and mhausenblas [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/09/10-ldp-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-10 - Publish member submission as FPWD with support of JohnArwe and mhausenblas [on Steve Speicher - due 2012-09-17].

<gavinc> uh

<gavinc> That action seems a bit strong ;)

<bblfish> +1

<gavinc> I think we were looking for a draft of a FPWD?

RESOLUTION: to move submission to working draft

<gavinc> not to publish it before anyone has seen it or it's been written?

<MacTed> yah; that was "convert member submission to working draft"

<gavinc> Ah okay :D

<JohnArwe> if yves needs my w3c id for setting up ACLS, it is jarwe

<MacTed> action 10?

<trackbot> Sorry, bad ACTION syntax

<MacTed> action-10?

<trackbot> ACTION-10 -- Steve Speicher to publish member submission as FPWD with support of JohnArwe and mhausenblas -- due 2012-09-17 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/actions/10

Michael: Correct, it is initially an Editors Draft that, given WG approval will be turned into a FPWD

<Yves> John, I'll check what is needed for dvcs, but it should be ok as long as you have a w3c id

<MacTed> action-10?

<trackbot> ACTION-10 -- Steve Speicher to convert member submission to Editor's Draft, with support of JohnArwe and mhausenblas -- due 2012-09-17 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/actions/10

<gavinc> Tracking and then nice little ISSUE notes in the document?

<Yves> repo should appear at https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg

Michael: Thanks Yves!

<gavinc> thanks Yves

<Yves> writable by all wg members

Michael: Can take care of creating the products in tracker

<oberger> you mean, providing code ?

<gavinc> or "this is bad and fixing it is really hard"?

<MacTed> +1 gavinc

Michael: The products are now in place , see https://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/products
... I suggest, from now on, please everyone, tag your issue and or action with one of the products - helps also the chairs

sandro: FPWD should be published before TPAC

PROPOSAL: FPWD should be published before TPAC

Michael: +1

<SteveS> +1, was what I was thinking as well

<gavinc> +0.9 (Not an editor, thus not +1 ;) )

Arnaud: Any objections?

<bblfish> seems good to me

Yves: The FPWD need not be perfect

Michael: +1000000000000

<oberger> release early, release often

<bblfish> +1

MacTed: Is that check with publication moratoriums, etc

Arnaud: Agreed. Chairs and team contact will check

<sandro> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/chairs/2012AprJun/0093.html

<sandro> Publishing moratoria second half of 2012

Michael: No publications the week of 29 October due to TPAC 2012:

<gavinc> October 29th, till...?

<oberger> sandro, may I ask what that is ?

sandro: let everyon review and raise issues

<Yves> <<

<Yves> Entrance criteria: The Chair MUST record the group's decision to request advancement. Since this is the first time that a document with this short name appears in the Technical Reports index, Director approval is REQUIRED for the transition.

<Yves> >>

<Zakim> mhausenblas, you wanted to propose reviewing process

<sandro> mhausenblas: Let the chairs set a deadline by which time everyone has to RAISE any issues they have with the submission/fpwd

<sandro> +1

Michael: Suggest some 4 weeks WG-internal review period in which WG members can raise issues once ED is available

<dret> ACTION: chairs should define a timeline for working on the editor's draft and the FPWG [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/09/10-ldp-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - chairs

RESOLUTION: WG resolves that the FPWD should be published before TPAC

SteveS: two action items really: create ED first and then resolve FPWD

<oberger> and we're discussing things that weren't really on the agenda initially ?

<dret> ACTION: Arnaud and dret define a timeline for working on the editor's draft and the FPWG [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/09/10-ldp-minutes.html#action04]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-11 - And dret define a timeline for working on the editor's draft and the FPWG [on Arnaud Le Hors - due 2012-09-17].

<oberger> of today's meeting I mean

<oberger> just in case

<JohnArwe> if you are using those "shared actions" to keep them on people's radar, since they get reviewed at the start of each mtg, not seeing the harm. true that editors could not unilaterally fulfill action, but we humans know that.

<bblfish> perhaps just make the chair responsible, and rephrase it: The chair opens discussion on the pre-published draft, and leaves 2-3 weeks for the questions before closing

<sandro> sandro: step 1: editors turn submission into ED; step 2: each member of the WG raises all the issues they care about; step 3: editors make sure those issues are listed in the ED and get it publisehd as FPWD.

Next meeting and F2F

Arnaud: Next meeting is on September 17, 2012

<bblfish> I have not registered, but count me in

Arnaud: Please register at http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/F2F1

<bblfish> ah

<sandro> bblfish, we can't count you in until you've paid.

<bblfish> ok, added myself to http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/F2F1#Participants

<bblfish> ah, ok. got to pay too then

<MacTed> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2012Sep/0001.html

Arnaud: Assuming everyone is happy with the proposed way to go by Steve Battle, see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2012Sep/0001.html

<sandro> Not sure the ACL's on this page, but TPAC registration shows up here: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35125/TPAC2012/registrants#LDP Seven attendees, two observers, so far.

Arnaud: No objections, so we assume we move on with this

Use Cases and Requirements

(scribe was sleeping, should really have been above)

Serialization formats

ISSUE-1?

<trackbot> ISSUE-1 -- Determine minimum serialization format for RDF data model -- raised

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/1

Arnaud: Seems we have wide agreement re Turtle

<Zakim> gavinc, you wanted to recommend that this WG review Turtle before the end of it's Last Call period

gavinc: With my Turtle Editors hat on, I support Turtle as the default

… LC for Turtle ends soon

… comments are welcome

<bblfish> ah it would be great to have = in turtle for owl:sameAs

Michael: +1 to use Turtle

<gavinc> http://www.w3.org/TR/turtle/

<oberger> http://www.w3.org/blog/SW/2012/07/13/rdf-working-group-publishes-turtle-as-last-call-working-draft/

PROPOSAL: The WG decides to use RDF Turtle as the minimum serialization format

<SteveS> +1

<gavinc> +1 Yay Turtle

Michael: +1

<bblfish> +1 it's especially useful to have turtle in the examples in the spec

<MacTed> +1

<rgarcia> +1

<dret> +1

<jkopecky> +1 for turtle

<oberger> +1 same as bblfish

<bblfish> ( rdf/xml is completely not understandable )

Roger: I support RDF Turtle, JSON is also good

<jkopecky> is RDF/JSON useful without code wrapping? If not, no diff from turtle

<Kalpa> +1 for turtle

<dret> we should have a few required formats ass possible (for interop)

Michael: +1 to dret

<bblfish> I think we should definitely allow other formats om tje longer run. (perhaps there should be some documentation in there)

<SteveS> Sounds like: Turtle = MUST, JSON-LD = SHOULD

<bblfish> SteveS: +1

<sandro> +1 for turtle as a minimum

<oberger> and RDF/XML : shouldn't ?

<SteveS> oberger: RDF/XML maybe just unsaid

<JohnArwe> +1 turtle

<dret> i like the MUST/SHOULD (recommended supported serializations) approach

<oberger> SteveS, it seems so unpopular, that we might as well take a stance ? ;)

<SteveS> oberger: my OSLC hat on, it will be a hard sell

<gavinc> We *MUST* allow other formats, but I don't think we should require more than one

<oberger> Eclipse... Lyo ;)

<bblfish> yes SHOULD for RDF?XML

<sandro> Arnaud: We might still REQUIRE or RECOMMEND other formats, although I agree one is probably best

<dret> agreed to Arnaus, 1 is the best number, 2 may be acceptable, anything bigger is probably not a good idea for interop

RESOLUTION: The WG decides to use RDF Turtle as the minimum serialization format

<bblfish> agree +1 for now Turtle is a MUST

<sandro> +1 arnaud chairing today! :-)

<bblfish> :)

<dret> thanks everybody!

<gavinc> Please please please review http://www.w3.org/TR/turtle/ or the edited ED http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-turtle/index.html#

<oberger> bye

(meeting adjourned)

<Kalpa> zakim aahh is me

trackbot, end telecon

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: Arnaud and dret define a timeline for working on the editor's draft and the FPWG [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/09/10-ldp-minutes.html#action04]
[NEW] ACTION: chairs should define a timeline for working on the editor's draft and the FPWG [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/09/10-ldp-minutes.html#action03]
[NEW] ACTION: sspeiche to publish member submission as FPWD with support of JohnArwe and mhausenblas [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/09/10-ldp-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: SteveS to publish member submission as FPWD with support of JohnArwe and mhausenblas [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/09/10-ldp-minutes.html#action01]
 
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.136 (CVS log)
$Date: 2012/09/10 15:25:35 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.136  of Date: 2011/05/12 12:01:43  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/Michel/Michael/
Succeeded: s/FPD/FPWD/
Succeeded: s/a/as/
Found ScribeNick: mhausenblas
Inferring Scribes: mhausenblas
Default Present: +1.845.433.aaaa, Arnaud, +1.510.206.aabb, SteveS, JohnArwe, gavinc, +1.510.698.aacc, MacTed, +1.714.454.aadd, oberger, mhausenblas, bblfish, Sandro, dret, +1.617.324.aaee, Karl, +1.617.324.aaff, Yves, rgarcia, krp, ghard, Ashok_Malhotra, +44.208.573.aagg, RezaBFar, +1.937.775.aahh, jkopecky
Present: +1.845.433.aaaa Arnaud +1.510.206.aabb SteveS JohnArwe gavinc +1.510.698.aacc MacTed +1.714.454.aadd oberger mhausenblas bblfish Sandro dret +1.617.324.aaee Karl +1.617.324.aaff Yves rgarcia krp ghard Ashok_Malhotra +44.208.573.aagg RezaBFar +1.937.775.aahh jkopecky
Found Date: 10 Sep 2012
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2012/09/10-ldp-minutes.html
People with action items: arnaud chairs sspeiche steves

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.


[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]