Linked Data Platform (LDP) Working Group Teleconference -- 12 Nov 2012

<trackbot> Date: 12 November 2012

<oberger> it looks like the F2F has boosted the contribs, right ?

I can scribe

I am not good at the commands for this

<SteveS> Scribe: bblfish

Approve the minutes before the face-to-face

do we have the link?

<cygri> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/meeting/2012-10-22

<oberger> read them

Minutes approved

<cygri> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/meeting/2012-11-01

<SteveS> read them

<stevebattle> yes

<cygri> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/meeting/2012-11-012

Approve TPAC minutes

<stevebattle> no

minutes of Nov 1,2 approved

<cygri> oops, second link should be http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/meeting/2012-11-02

Action and Issues

<oberger> actions

Arnaud: does anyone want to claim any actions

<cygri> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/actions/pendingreview

<oberger> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/actions/21

close action 21

<JohnArwe> close action-21

<trackbot> ACTION-21 Set up wiki page on Access Control closed

<oberger> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/actions/25

close action-25

<trackbot> ACTION-25 Create a wiki page for the test suite and validator proposals closed

issue-33?

<trackbot> ISSUE-33 -- Pagination for non-container resources -- raised

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/33

<cygri> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Deployment_Guide

issue-7?

<trackbot> ISSUE-7 -- What operations are permittered on containers and how do they get invoked? -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/7

<MacTed> issue-26?

<trackbot> ISSUE-26 -- creation model for LDP -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/26

<MacTed> action-26?

<trackbot> ACTION-26 -- Richard Cyganiak to create wiki page for Deployment Guide -- due 2012-11-09 -- PENDINGREVIEW

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/actions/26

<cygri> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/actions/pendingreview

action 26? Or 25?

<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find 26?. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/users>.

<oberger> action 22?

<trackbot> Sorry, bad ACTION syntax

close action-22

<trackbot> ACTION-22 Open an issue on paging closed

close action-23

<trackbot> ACTION-23 Create a new issue on managing weak aggregation, to subsume ISSUE-7; PATCH might be one way to do it closed

close action-26

<trackbot> ACTION-26 Create wiki page for Deployment Guide closed

<cygri> I claim victory on actions 22, 23, 26

Arnaud: steve battle have you done action 19?

action-19?

<trackbot> ACTION-19 -- Steve Battle to lDBP -> LDP, have to be done on the use case and requirements document as well as there are many references to "basic profile". -- due 2012-10-27 -- PENDINGREVIEW

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/actions/19

close action-19

<trackbot> ACTION-19 LDBP -> LDP, have to be done on the use case and requirements document as well as there are many references to "basic profile". closed

close action-20

<trackbot> ACTION-20 Move Use Case examples to Examples area on the wiki closed

Issues Raised

Olivier: what do we do with comments on the public mailing list which look like issues?

Arnaud: formally speaking during last call where there is a duty to deal with all the comments we received. It is not necessary to do this now, but it is a good thing to do it, ...
... if you see an issue put it up
... lets look at the raised issues

<cygri> member:zakim who is on the phone?

issue-27?

<trackbot> ISSUE-27 -- Should the PATCH method be used, as opposed to POST with a given mime type? -- raised

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/27

<oberger> is the lack of "raiser" normal ?

cygri: issue-27 was raised by timBL during the face to face

Arnaud: we should open issue-27

reopen issue-27

<trackbot> ISSUE-27 Should the PATCH method be used, as opposed to POST with a given mime type? re-opened

issue-28?

<trackbot> ISSUE-28 -- transaction/rollback when deleting resources from a LDPC -- raised

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/28

<oberger> open it

any opinions?

who is this?

SteveS: we should open it, its a valid issue

SteveBattle: thinks given RDF is an open world model this does not make so much sense, but we should open it

reopen issue-28

<trackbot> ISSUE-28 transaction/rollback when deleting resources from a LDPC re-opened

issue-29?

<trackbot> ISSUE-29 -- Relative URIs are crucial -- raised

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/29

stevebattle: could have impact on primer
... but not sure if it has impact on spec

<MacTed> +1 open

richard should be a deployment guide thing

<oberger> let's open it and stop discussing for now, then ;)

<cygri> oberger++

no just got a proxy that can proxy w3c and add webid auth to it

reopen issue-29

<trackbot> ISSUE-29 Relative URIs are crucial re-opened

issue-30?

<trackbot> ISSUE-30 -- Hierarchical bugtracking service -- raised

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/30

cygri: already has been very useful

<oberger> I'm afraid the description is not understandable

Arnaud: but why do we have an issue here

SteveS: badly written contains two issues - SteveS can you detail this here?

Arnaud: this is an issue against the UCR
... lets leave it as is for now until Eric is here

<oberger> +1 for ericP to provide a bit more verbose description of the "issues"

stevebattle: are these intended to be examples that should go into use case document. These are not examples already there.

Arnaud: we get back to it when Eric is back

<oberger> ericP, please enlighten us on http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/30

Issue-31?

<trackbot> ISSUE-31 -- Proper Conformance section for LDP spec -- raised

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/31

Arnaud: that seems real

reopen issue-31

<trackbot> ISSUE-31 Proper Conformance section for LDP spec re-opened

issue-32?

<trackbot> ISSUE-32 -- How can clients discover that a resource is an LDPR or LDPC, and what features are supported? -- raised

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/32

<oberger> issue-7?

<trackbot> ISSUE-7 -- What operations are permittered on containers and how do they get invoked? -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/7

<MacTed> +1 open 32

<deiu> +1 for 32

SteveS: some of these cases are already known...

reopen issue-32

<trackbot> ISSUE-32 How can clients discover that a resource is an LDPR or LDPC, and what features are supported? re-opened

issue-33?

<trackbot> ISSUE-33 -- Pagination for non-container resources -- raised

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/33

reopen issue-33

<trackbot> ISSUE-33 Pagination for non-container resources re-opened

issue-34?

<trackbot> ISSUE-34 -- Adding and removing arcs in weak aggregation -- raised

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/34

reopen issue-34

<trackbot> ISSUE-34 Adding and removing arcs in weak aggregation re-opened

issue-35?

<trackbot> ISSUE-35 -- POSTing to a container MUST yield a fresh URI -- raised

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/35

Arnaud: is that a different one richard?

cygri: i find the current language about assigning new URIs after POST-to-container too weak
... might just be editorial issue

SteveS and MacTed: should be opened

reopen issue-35

<trackbot> ISSUE-35 POSTing to a container MUST yield a fresh URI re-opened

<stevebattle> wasn't me who said that

Use Cases and requirements

Arnaud: SteveS sadly missed the last afternoon of TPAC....

SteveS: the UCR use cases should be closer to the POWDER use cases

stevebattle: please let me know by mail if there is more I should do

ah damn

stevebattle: looked at POWDER

<oberger> URL of that one ?

stevebattle: I don't find POWDER to be particular clear about use cases - they seem to confuse use-cases and user stories

<oberger> http://www.w3.org/TR/powder-use-cases/

Arnaud: user stories should be moved after ...(?)

stevebattle: some of the user stories need more curating, and not all of even quality
... the original authors should try bringing them up to the same quality
... I have added a link to the approriate use case in the document

Arnaud: there is still a sense that the document needs a lot of work before it is publishing. Do you know what the group wants.

stevebattle: yes, not sure what the group wants
... not much review of the use cases ( content ) themselves
... would be good for people to review them

Arnaud: chicken and egg situation. let's see if we can get out of this deadlock

stevebattle: I have a meeting with steve s tomorrow, and then people can have a review over email after that

Arnaud: send an e-mail to the mailing list when things have cleared

xxx: lots of good information there and we would then put remassage it and let the group know

Arnaud: where is the new content btw

stevebattle: it is in the examples section
... more the content of the examples, without presuming the specification . Arnaud you told me to aproach the document as you have never seen it before.

Arnaud: it is indeed a challenge :-) It sounds like we have a plan

stevebattle: people can volunteer to co-edit

Arnaud: yes, please reach out to steve

Test suite and validator

<dret> another possible guidance for UCR: if we end up with functionality in the spec that's *not* asked for in UCR, then technically that is not required in the spec because it wasn't asked for.

Arnaud: we have a page for this

<oberger> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Testing

<oberger> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Validation

Arnaud: there can be a dependency between these pages

<oberger> hasn't alexandre asked for 26th ?

Arnaud: maybe we agree on a timeframe on when we close on this?
... ah yes we allready agreed on this

stevebattle: what level of input are you asking for

Arnaud: not at the level of asking for tests, but looking for framework for the tests

<oberger> the pages lack an introductory text

+1 for oberger

Access Control and use cases and Requirements

Ashok: I agree that access control is somewhat orthogonal to LData, and you are going to get lots of different styles of access control
... depending on how the rdf is store and where it is stored and so on
... we can add some core examples

<oberger> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/AccessControl

Ashok: how are the access control pages identified

ah ok

Ashok: henry (bblfish) can fill this out and so we can have the id and access control sections to fill it out

<oberger> bblfish, has the meeting doodle given any result ?

<oberger> is someone scribing ? ;)

Arnaud: henry can expand on WebID section
... was expecting to go through a similar process as the other UCR
... people should add something to this document
... do we want to go through a laundry list of technoliogies
... or how does one go up
... what I'd like to see the document that lists the use cases and requirements, and then later different techs that can implement those

oberger: is the ownership notion of container is something that one should address in this UCR? (ACL) who is the entitiy or organisation responsible for deletion/ownership of resources

<deiu> I would just like to make a suggestion: since access control enforcement takes place on the LDP provider (where data is hosted), could we at least see if we can add identity to LDPC/R? Something along the lines of "acl:owner" for LDPC/R.

oberger: in terms of intellectual property: so if you want to complain for a bug, who do you ask?

<stevebattle> Makes sense to think about resource centric ACLs

Arnaud: we need to list the use cases, so perhaps this should be in the document
... so whether the spec deals with this is somewhat orthogonal at the moment
... expanded on granularity of access control
... in this area we need this level of access control

Arnaud: do we need a time framew for this or leave it open
... lets leave it open, but... go ahead and add use cases
... 3 minutes left

<oberger> deiu, has your question on the ML be addressed wrt ACL ?

LDP specification

<deiu> oberger, yes, at least for now

<oberger> deiu, :-)

SteveS: the only one that is outstanding is issue-25

so I opened an action to make those changes as they were not small ( which action?)

a number of comments on the spec, so I was going to take those editorial and type changes ... encourage the WG members to open those issues - or non WG to push WG members to do this

Ashok: Steve with regeard to issue-7

issue-7?

<trackbot> ISSUE-7 -- What operations are permittered on containers and how do they get invoked? -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/7

<oberger> Ashok, +1

Ashok: would it clearify things if ... ( ashok please fill in)

Arnaud: indeed it would be nice to have some high level discussion of how containers should work.

<oberger> and details on the impact on graphs in discussions

Arnaud: how it works, what one can do to it, etc...

SteveS: issue-7 should be closed as it will be subsumed by issue-2x?

Arnaud: we should leverage other models that exist, and it does not have to be in the spec.

Ashok: it would help people if it were part of the spec

<dret> if that helps, i could try to create a "framework" that would allow us to better compare and contrast various approaches? in the end, the spec maybe should maybe use that structure to explain what we're doing and where it differs from existing models.

Arnaud: we are out of time, and we will leave it at that
... we are tackling this problem piecemeal without a clear idea what a general graph is

<dret> +1, the model needs to be crystal-clear.

<deiu> +1 for that

<dret> thanks, Arnaud: file systems are very complicated and can behave very differently.

Arnaud: but file systems are different, and there a symbolic links

<SteveS> I will propose something to the list in coming days

Arnaud: ok thanks all, see you next week

<Ashok> Thanks, SteveS!

<stevebattle> bye

<oberger> see ya

Arnaud: mailing list has been closed to deal with the IP issues. There may also be too many cooks in kitchen

<dret> thanks!

how do I close meeting

meeting adjourned

<oberger> deiu, your turn is next ;)

<MacTed> trackbot, end meeting

Zakim: meeting adj

Zakim: meeting adjourned

- DRAFT -

Linked Data Platform (LDP) Working Group Teleconference

12 Nov 2012

Attendees

Contents

Approve the minutes before the face-to-face

Approve TPAC minutes

Action and Issues

Issues Raised

Use Cases and requirements

Test suite and validator

Access Control and use cases and Requirements

LDP specification

Summary of Action Items

Scribe.perl diagnostic output