<sandro> trackbot, start meeting

<trackbot> Date: 15 October 2012

<trackbot> Meeting: Linked Data Platform (LDP) Working Group Teleconference

<trackbot> Date: 15 October 2012

<SteveS> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Scribes

<scribe> scribe: BartvanLeeuwen

last week minutes

<mhausenblas> +1

<bblfish> speaking about aproving http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/meeting/2012-10-08

Approving minutes

<bblfish> ACTION: minutes approved [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/10/15-ldp-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find minutes. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/users>.

F2F Lyon

please register

tomorrow ends low fee period

<bblfish> how do I say action approved

<bblfish> ?

<gavinc> It wasn't an action

<gavinc> RESOLVED: Approve Minutes 2012-10-08

<bblfish> that's it

Issue-8

<gavinc> ISSUE-8?

<trackbot> ISSUE-8 -- Better define or just not use the "Basic profile" terminology -- pending review

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/8

<mhausenblas> +1 to the proposal

arnaud: anybody disagrees ?

<gavinc> Is the proposal in the agenda?

<SteveS> +1 for spec name of LDP to match WG name

<oberger> "Meeting of 8 October proposed to resolve ISSUE-8 Removing Profile by adopting "Linked Data Platform" as the name of our specification. We need to close this issue so that the draft can be updated accordingly prior to publication. "

<SteveS> PROPOSED: LDP = Linked Data Platform for specification name, removing LDBP

<MacTed> +1

<krp> +1

<mhausenblas> +1

<sandro> +1

<stevebattle> +1

<oberger> +1

<rgarcia> +1

<gavinc> +0

+1

<bblfish> +1

<JohnArwe> +1

<Arnaud> +1

<nmihindu> +1

<svillata> +1

RESOLUTION: LDP = Linked Data Platform for specification name, removing LDBP

<oberger> what about resources and containers names ?

Open Actions

<gavinc> ACTION-6?

<trackbot> ACTION-6 -- Michael Hausenblas to review SDshare -- due 2012-09-28 -- OPEN

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

<mhausenblas> http://www.w3.org/community/sdshare/

<gavinc> mhausenblas: Haven't written it up, but I have talked with the community group about it.

mhausenblas: I will report to mailing list, new CG is formed, to get SDShare into next level

mhausenblas, SDShare will not overlap LDP, its complementary, SDShare / LDP should play nice together, but no hard dependencies

Issues

<MacTed> :-)

Issue-22?

<trackbot> ISSUE-22 -- Need to normatively reference and recommend JSON-LD -- raised

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/22

Issue-22

who was that ?

<mhausenblas> Michael: I'm not a huge fan of doing that, tbh would prefer something simple such as http://www.w3.org/wiki/JTriples

<bblfish> reopen Issue-22

<trackbot> ISSUE-22 Need to normatively reference and recommend JSON-LD re-opened

<JohnArwe> I'm willing to try and keep up with the decisions using the web api in real time.

opening Issue-23

opening Issue-24

Issue-24?

<trackbot> ISSUE-24 -- Should DELETED resources remain deleted? -- raised

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/24

<gavinc> Should DELETE result in 410s forever?

<JohnArwe> seems like we are function creeping from "should we open" into a full discussion on the candidate issue

<oberger> let's open it

<mhausenblas> -1

<oberger> cause there's an argument ongoing -> on the ML ;)

<stevebattle> I think the spec is unclear - it should explcictly refer to the cool URIs advice, but not prescribe one way or t'other.

<MacTed> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/24

<gavinc> 4.5.1 BPR servers must remove the resource identified by the Request-URI. After a successful HTTP DELETE, a subsequent HTTP GET on the same Request-URI must result in a 404 (Not found) or 410 (Gone) status code, until another resource is created or associated with the same Request-URI.

<mhausenblas> +1 to open it and add a non-normative reference to cool URIs, etc. to make clear that apps should handle it

<MacTed> MacTed: spec seems clear enough. I see use cases where location-based URIs may be reused to name entirely different resources -- i.e., when locations change

<oberger> Is there a reference to CoolURIs in the specs ? Shouldn't there be ?

<MacTed> MacTed: the text of the Issue page seems to raise 4 different concerns. I suggest that it be broken up more...

<bblfish> Not trying to be hard on Ruben, just trying to clarify how quickly one should open issues

<Ruben> No problem :)

<bblfish> process is working +1

<stevebattle> I think we should allow time for email discussion.

<Ruben> I'm willing to discuss on the mailing list

<oberger> Is there a reference to CoolURIs in the specs ? Shouldn't there be ?

<oberger> (repeating myself ? ;-)

<mhausenblas> PROPOSAL: Open ISSUE-24

<stevebattle> +1

<Ruben> I will.

+1

<mhausenblas> Michael: Thanks a lot, Ruben!

<Arnaud> +1

<krp> +1

<MacTed> +1

RESOLUTION: Open ISSUE-24

reopen Issue-24

<trackbot> ISSUE-24 Should DELETED resources remain deleted? re-opened

Specification

Arnaud: where are we in timeline, what is the shape for the F2F

SteveS: pulled the open issues in the current draft, apart from todays issues

Arnaud: Next call ( 22-10 ) spec should be ready for FPWD

<mhausenblas> PROPOSAL: To consider the current ED as ready for review by WG

SteveS: Spec could be done by tomorrow

<Zakim> mhausenblas, you wanted to propose a process re FPWD

mhausenblas: we should appoint 2 / 3 volunteers for review asap

<AndyS> This is FPWD -- the barrier need not be very high. "Publish early, publish often"

<mhausenblas> Michael: I agree AndyS - I'm just trying to play it safe ;)

<gavinc> +1 I support publishing what we have as a FPWD ;)

<SteveS> For what it is worth, this member submission (mostly the same words) has been public since April 2nd

<oberger> +1 SteveS

<oberger> let's see what the community thinks about it

Arnaud: SteveS will report when the spec is ready, everybody has chance to next meeting to support it.

Use cases and requirements

stevebattle: Close outstanding issue by next monday, week later first draft ready

stevebattle, good discussion about Issue-20 on the list

<bblfish> Issue-20?

<trackbot> ISSUE-20 -- Identifying and naming POSTed resources -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/20

<AndyS> I have quoted the spec text!

<bblfish> there was a nice mail today quoting rfc2616 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2012Oct/0160.html

Open issues

Issue-20?

<trackbot> ISSUE-20 -- Identifying and naming POSTed resources -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/20

<gavinc> RDF WG is unlikely to add relative URIs to RDF

bblfish, should we coordinate something to discuss with RDF-wg at TPAC

<Arnaud> ACTION: bart to it's ok if you can't get everything [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/10/15-ldp-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-18 - It's ok if you can't get everything [on Bart van Leeuwen - due 2012-10-22].

<Arnaud> oops, sorry

<gavinc> Is the the issue: How do you create new RDF resource with an unknown URI?

<gavinc> That's what I think the issue is, yes?

<AndyS> +1 to gavinc.

<gavinc> +q to say what I just said in IRC

<mhausenblas> Michael: I'm wondering. Are we talking protocol or are we talking philosophy?

<mhausenblas> Michael: Not trying to be offensive, but ...

<mhausenblas> Michael: I believe in running code and experiencing issues through it. Discussions only take us so far ;)

<Zakim> gavinc, you wanted to say what I just said in IRC

<bblfish> yes

<bblfish> +1

<stevebattle> correct :)

<stevebattle> agreed.

<Zakim> mhausenblas, you wanted to suggest to show, not tell

<bblfish> mhausenblas: I already have code on this

<bblfish> I pointed to in in e-mail

<sandro> +1 rough consensus and running code

<gavinc> Creating a Turtle document with a <> in it, maybe VERY VERY hard.

<gavinc> Oh, there is a code issue ;)

<bblfish> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2012Oct/0160.html

<AndyS> +1 to gavinc.

<gavinc> +q to say that there IS a code issue

<gavinc> The server is easy

<gavinc> The client? heh

<AndyS> RFC 3986 says something different to my reading. gavinc has a good point for the client side.

<gavinc> http-bis doesn't have an issue

<JohnArwe> I have not looked recently with this particular issue driving me, but I have read several bis sections several times over the past year or so (POST among them) without catching any big-animal changes.

<Zakim> gavinc, you wanted to say that there IS a code issue

<stevebattle> Good point

<stevebattle> Could someone mail some code to prove that point (eg. using Jena to create <>)

gavinc, there are no tools available which can create the empty base URI documents

<bblfish> +1

<AndyS> Jena allows the base URI to be specificied but the client does not know before sending. Need to serialize before sending.

<bblfish> Don't let the current status on the tools rule good clean APIs

<AndyS> I see no point in faking a base to tunnel through toolkits correctly implementing RDF.

<gavinc> +1

<MacTed> gavinc - my point is that it's already standardized as part of Turtle.

<bblfish> Ah I was thinking of Dan Connolly on speech acts and http

<MacTed> (and every other serialization of which I'm aware)

<gavinc> <> does not have specific meaning in Turtle

<gavinc> <> is not magic

<bblfish> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/dj9/story.html

bye

<stevebattle> Thanks for the speech acts pointer

<Arnaud> Meeting adjourned

<Arnaud> trackbot, meeting adjourned

<trackbot> Sorry, Arnaud, I don't understand 'trackbot, meeting adjourned'. Please refer to http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc for help

<AndyS> adjourned

<gavinc> It is totally reasonable to produce a Turtle document which replaces <> with <http://example.org/base/> in every instance, and by specification the MEANING of the document has not changed.

<Arnaud> trackbot, end meeting

This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.137  of Date: 2012/09/20 20:19:01  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Found Scribe: BartvanLeeuwen
Inferring ScribeNick: BartvanLeeuwen
Default Present: +329331aaaa, +1.408.996.aabb, Sandro, Ruben, Arnaud, BartvanLeeuwen, SteveS, +1.510.698.aacc, krp, bblfish, +1.845.433.aadd, +1.707.861.aaee, gavinc, svillata, +1.937.775.aaff, Kalpa, Ashok_Malhotra, +44.117.370.aagg, +1.617.324.aahh, stevebattle, oberger, Yves, +1.781.273.aaii, rgarcia, MacTed, nmihindu, +3539149aajj, mhausenblas, +44.208.573.aakk, JohnArwe, AndyS
Present: +329331aaaa +1.408.996.aabb Sandro Ruben Arnaud BartvanLeeuwen SteveS +1.510.698.aacc krp bblfish +1.845.433.aadd +1.707.861.aaee gavinc svillata +1.937.775.aaff Kalpa Ashok_Malhotra +44.117.370.aagg +1.617.324.aahh stevebattle oberger Yves +1.781.273.aaii rgarcia MacTed nmihindu +3539149aajj mhausenblas +44.208.573.aakk JohnArwe AndyS

WARNING: No meeting chair found!
You should specify the meeting chair like this:
<dbooth> Chair: dbooth

Found Date: 15 Oct 2012
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2012/10/15-ldp-minutes.html
People with action items: bart minutes

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