IRC log of webid on 2012-11-16

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:56:59 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #webid
14:56:59 [RRSAgent]
logging to
14:57:01 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs world
14:57:01 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #webid
14:57:03 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be WEBID
14:57:03 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot, I see INC_WEBID(WEBID)10:00AM already started
14:57:04 [trackbot]
Meeting: WebID Community Group Teleconference
14:57:04 [trackbot]
Date: 16 November 2012
14:57:36 [Zakim]
14:57:51 [deiu]
Zakim, ??P14 is me
14:57:51 [Zakim]
+deiu; got it
14:57:55 [Zakim]
14:58:04 [deiu]
Zakim, mute me please
14:58:04 [Zakim]
deiu should now be muted
14:58:54 [bblfish]
which client are you using?
14:59:02 [deiu]
use sip then:
14:59:13 [deiu]
Zakim, unmute me please
14:59:13 [Zakim]
deiu should no longer be muted
14:59:17 [trueg]
I am using linphone on Linux which works nice
14:59:30 [bblfish]
we tried doing these conf on Skype but that did not work
15:00:50 [Zakim]
15:00:53 [deiu]
ah yes
15:00:59 [deiu]
that was you, trueg
15:01:05 [trueg]
deiu: yes
15:01:07 [deiu]
lots of background noise
15:01:28 [Zakim]
15:02:12 [trueg]
deiu: better now?
15:02:20 [deiu]
15:02:26 [Zakim]
15:02:39 [Zakim]
+ +
15:02:58 [trueg]
deiu: bg noise gone?
15:02:59 [Zakim]
15:03:19 [kidehen]
kidehen has joined #webid
15:03:32 [Zakim]
- +
15:03:52 [deiu]
Zakim, please mute trueg
15:03:52 [Zakim]
sorry, deiu, I do not know which phone connection belongs to trueg
15:04:08 [deiu]
Zakim, P15 is trueg
15:04:08 [Zakim]
sorry, deiu, I do not recognize a party named 'P15'
15:04:11 [deiu]
Zakim, ??P15 is trueg
15:04:11 [Zakim]
+trueg; got it
15:04:15 [deiu]
Zakim, please mute trueg
15:04:15 [Zakim]
trueg should now be muted
15:04:16 [Zakim]
15:04:23 [melvster]
melvster has joined #webid
15:04:51 [deiu]
trueg, use "Zakim, unmute me"
15:04:52 [bblfish]
Topic: Identity Interoperability
15:05:00 [trueg]
Zakim, unmute me
15:05:00 [Zakim]
trueg should no longer be muted
15:05:04 [bblfish]
15:05:11 [deiu]
scribenick: deiu
15:05:16 [Zakim]
15:05:22 [deiu]
scribe: deiu
15:05:24 [oberger]
Zakim, P22 is me
15:05:24 [Zakim]
sorry, oberger, I do not recognize a party named 'P22'
15:05:27 [bblfish]
15:05:32 [oberger]
Zakim, ??P22 is me
15:05:32 [Zakim]
+oberger; got it
15:05:54 [oberger]
Zakim, mute me
15:05:54 [Zakim]
oberger should now be muted
15:07:14 [bblfish]
Feedback on Identity Interoperability
15:08:02 [Zakim]
15:08:28 [deiu]
waiting for bblfish to reconnect
15:08:44 [bblfish_]
bblfish_ has joined #webid
15:08:54 [oberger]
the usual waiting tone
15:09:38 [bblfish__]
bblfish__ has joined #webid
15:09:49 [oberger]
deiu, scribing is easy, when it's like this ;)
15:09:51 [oberger]
15:09:52 [oberger]
15:10:15 [Zakim]
15:10:25 [oberger]
wb bblfish
15:10:25 [bblfish__]
15:11:05 [oberger]
Zakim, who's on the phone ?
15:11:05 [Zakim]
On the phone I see deiu, trueg, [OpenLink], oberger (muted), bblfish
15:11:27 [kidehen]
zakim: kidehen is OpenLink
15:11:29 [oberger]
15:11:36 [deiu]
bblfish: the idea of interoperability wiki is to show how different identity systems using different protocols can prove the relation between a string and something, so that one can use multiple authentication methods
15:11:41 [MacTed]
MacTed has joined #webid
15:12:12 [bblfish__]
15:12:22 [Zakim]
15:12:30 [deiu]
... how we can do this in a way to logically have the systems interoperate
15:12:55 [deiu]
... access control must still work regardless of the authentication method
15:13:05 [MacTed]
Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
15:13:05 [Zakim]
+MacTed; got it
15:13:07 [MacTed]
Zakim, mute me
15:13:07 [Zakim]
MacTed should now be muted
15:14:01 [bblfish__]
15:14:08 [bblfish__]
15:14:09 [deiu]
... the idea is to have "Principles" (e.g. email principles, openid ones, etc.)
15:14:16 [bblfish__]
15:14:32 [deiu]
15:14:36 [oberger]
Principal Principles
15:14:38 [MacTed]
MacTed has changed the topic to: Informal WebID Teleconf Nov 16th, 16:00 CET / 15:00 GMT / 10:00 EST ; plan for call:
15:15:14 [bblfish__]
15:15:27 [bblfish__]
= <>
15:15:41 [kidehen]
15:15:48 [MacTed]
15:15:51 [deiu]
... MailoRef("") = <>
15:16:06 [MacTed]
15:16:10 [MacTed]
15:16:15 [MacTed]
15:16:44 [deiu]
15:16:50 [bblfish__]
15:17:19 [oberger]
mboxSubj(<>) = http://.../foaf.rdf#me ?
15:17:29 [bblfish__]
15:17:36 [bblfish__]
15:18:24 [bblfish__]
Deiu: is wondering if this is relevant to WebID definition
15:18:25 [kidehen]
15:18:31 [kidehen]
there's less concern about that
15:18:34 [oberger]
mboxSubj(<>) = <http://.../foaf.rdf#me> ?
15:18:40 [kidehen]
the mail issue is the definition
15:18:54 [kidehen]
15:18:57 [deiu]
ack deiu
15:19:39 [kidehen]
bblfish__: I think we are mostly in agreement about the decoupling. It's the definition where we are challenged
15:19:40 [deiu]
bblfish: decoupling is important
15:19:57 [oberger]
15:20:14 [bblfish__]
Topic: WebID Definition
15:20:31 [deiu]
15:20:39 [kidehen]
I've added my definition to the bottom
15:20:56 [kidehen]
Generic URI definition
15:21:18 [bblfish]
15:21:43 [deiu]
bblfish: can remove Robot
15:22:17 [oberger]
bblfish: or replace Robor by Software Agent (re. kidehen's argument)
15:22:19 [kidehen]
15:22:22 [deiu]
... you have to have the WebID in that document
15:22:30 [kidehen]
yes, but it gets longer
15:22:39 [kidehen]
I can tweak it
15:22:43 [kidehen]
give some seconds
15:23:03 [kidehen]
15:23:05 [kidehen]
read on
15:23:12 [kidehen]
I did
15:23:54 [kidehen]
let me check
15:24:02 [kidehen]
it was to do with dereference
15:24:06 [kidehen]
let me read it again
15:24:19 [oberger]
dwdiff | aha actually
15:24:39 [oberger]
15:25:32 [deiu]
bblfish: looking at the generic one, we see that we have a problem with over-generalization
15:25:53 [deiu]
... TimBL argued we need to simplify the definition/spec
15:26:14 [deiu]
... so that we can push this into a standard process (WG)
15:26:33 [Zakim]
15:26:36 [kidehen]
15:26:37 [MacTed]
Zakim, unmute me
15:26:38 [Zakim]
MacTed should no longer be muted
15:26:44 [deiu]
... there is a strong notion that WebID is "something on the Web", meaning we should push for HTTP(S)
15:26:45 [MacTed]
15:26:52 [MacTed]
kidehen - your call dropped
15:27:03 [kidehen]
calling back
15:27:06 [deiu]
... it's a terminology problem
15:27:14 [deiu]
ack MacTed
15:27:16 [bblfish]
ack MacTed
15:27:30 [Zakim]
15:27:51 [deiu]
MacTed: the narrowing of the spec should not be an elimination of specific stuff, but an encouragement of the narrow spec
15:27:55 [oberger]
Zakim, OpenLink is kidehen
15:27:55 [Zakim]
+kidehen; got it
15:28:07 [deiu]
... overusing MUST is problematic
15:28:20 [kidehen]
15:28:27 [deiu]
15:28:49 [deiu]
bblfish: it is useful to have RDFa and Turtle
15:29:10 [oberger]
15:29:12 [deiu]
MacTed: why reduce it down to HTTP?
15:29:50 [oberger]
+1 MacTed
15:30:18 [kidehen]
15:30:30 [deiu]
15:30:36 [kidehen]
URIs == mega inherently interoperable
15:30:49 [oberger]
the specs and the primer will be different in this respect : the specs says SHOULD support HTTP(s) URL and the primer only gives examples with HTTP for the moment
15:31:54 [kidehen]
HTML is a bad example
15:32:14 [deiu]
No it's not
15:32:33 [oberger]
deiu, scribing ? ;)
15:32:37 [kidehen]
HTML is bad because it is irrelevant
15:32:51 [oberger]
deiu, no worry
15:33:03 [deiu]
MacTed: the WebID must be a URI, regardless of the scheme
15:33:20 [deiu]
... it's a big issue to force HTTP with a MUST in the definition
15:33:39 [oberger]
15:33:46 [oberger]
MUST be dereferenceable
15:33:50 [kidehen]
Webfinger for acct:
15:33:56 [kidehen]
de-reference == lookup
15:34:01 [kidehen]
see TimBL's own docs
15:34:04 [oberger]
15:34:06 [kidehen]
re. Web Design
15:34:14 [kidehen]
de-reference is to lookup
15:34:22 [oberger]
you send a mail and wait for a response
15:34:25 [deiu]
15:37:00 [timbl]
timbl has joined #webid
15:37:17 [oberger]
kidehen: web scale verifiable identity
15:37:28 [oberger]
... in a conceptual document
15:37:35 [bblfish]
15:37:37 [oberger]
... then an implmentation guideline
15:37:40 [timbl]
Zakim, call timbl-conf
15:37:40 [Zakim]
ok, timbl; the call is being made
15:37:42 [Zakim]
15:38:14 [oberger]
15:38:20 [oberger]
ack kidehen
15:38:28 [bblfish]
15:38:54 [timbl]
losing henry
15:38:54 [oberger]
bblfish, we can't hear ya anymore
15:39:11 [timbl]
Zakim, mute bblfish
15:39:11 [Zakim]
bblfish should now be muted
15:39:11 [MacTed]
Zakim, who's noisy?
15:39:14 [Zakim]
15:39:17 [oberger]
Zakim, mute bblfish
15:39:17 [Zakim]
sorry, oberger, I do not know which phone connection belongs to bblfish
15:39:22 [Zakim]
MacTed, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: deiu (36%)
15:39:23 [bblfish]
ok I'll get back
15:39:26 [MacTed]
Zakim, mute deiu
15:39:26 [Zakim]
deiu should now be muted
15:39:27 [kidehen]
bblfish: we should make that a formal conceptual guide, something that's referred to from the technical specs
15:39:28 [bblfish]
Did I see timbl online
15:39:29 [bblfish]
15:39:33 [oberger]
15:39:40 [deiu]
15:39:45 [betehess_laptop]
betehess_laptop has joined #webid
15:39:54 [oberger]
deiu, you mean ;)
15:39:57 [betehess_laptop]
Zakim, who is here?
15:39:57 [Zakim]
On the phone I see deiu (muted), trueg, oberger (muted), MacTed, kidehen, Timbl
15:39:59 [trueg]
it's understandable, phones are a rather new technology
15:40:00 [Zakim]
On IRC I see betehess_laptop, timbl, MacTed, bblfish, melvster, kidehen, Zakim, RRSAgent, deiu, trueg, magnetik, oberger, jmvanel, webr3, trackbot, sandro, mischat, elf-pavlik,
15:40:00 [Zakim]
... bergi
15:40:06 [Zakim]
15:40:07 [trueg]
15:40:24 [timbl]
Sorry bbl fish our fault the feedack
15:40:34 [oberger]
kidehen: we have a conceptual guide
15:40:44 [oberger]
... we should connect it to ???
15:40:49 [betehess_laptop]
Zakim, Timbl is with betehess and deiu
15:40:49 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'Timbl is with betehess and deiu', betehess_laptop
15:40:50 [oberger]
anyone for scribing ?
15:41:01 [betehess_laptop]
Zakim, Timbl also has with betehess and deiu
15:41:01 [Zakim]
+with, betehess, deiu; got it
15:41:31 [oberger]
I think we should vote ;)
15:41:39 [bblfish]
15:41:57 [timbl]
15:42:01 [deiu]
ack kidehen
15:42:05 [oberger]
acking deiu ?
15:42:05 [kidehen]
15:42:05 [deiu]
15:42:07 [bblfish]
15:42:20 [betehess_laptop]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
15:42:20 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate betehess_laptop
15:42:34 [kidehen]
no, hash URL
15:42:48 [oberger]
kidehen and macted's argument vs bblfish's
15:43:01 [betehess_laptop]
chair: bblfish
15:43:08 [kidehen]
acct:, ldap:
15:43:17 [betehess_laptop]
scribenick: betehess_laptop
15:43:19 [kidehen]
ldap: owns the enterprise
15:43:32 [deiu]
bblfish: by having a general conception of URI, we can open WebID to other groups
15:43:42 [betehess_laptop]
bblfish: kingsley does not want to force people to use http url, because we could loose other communities
15:43:46 [kidehen]
timbl: +1 re. goals
15:43:50 [betehess_laptop]
timbl: it's about interoperatibility
15:44:17 [betehess_laptop]
... but you have to say what the protocol will be for eacxh of those
15:44:37 [betehess_laptop]
... what people agreed in Lyon is authentication is different
15:45:14 [betehess_laptop]
... but for WebID, it has to stick with the Web
15:45:32 [bblfish]
15:45:33 [oberger]
so the compliance is on software re. the protocol and not about the WebID identity purely
15:45:33 [betehess_laptop]
... you can still have other authentication scheme in the future
15:45:39 [kidehen]
timbl: okay, if the "Web" part == http: then that's fine, but the type of HTTP URI doesn't have to be #
15:46:05 [deiu]
15:46:11 [kidehen]
timbl: since HTTP URI works fine thereby leaving the option for hash or hashless HTTP URIs, as per Linked Data principles
15:46:39 [betehess_laptop]
bblfish: you can find all the current definitions at the pasted URI
15:46:49 [deiu]
bblfish: people were getting upset about the current definition
15:47:01 [deiu]
... everyone agrees to remove the public key part
15:47:17 [betehess_laptop]
I can't even find the definitio0n from TPAC
15:47:17 [kidehen]
bblfish: +1
15:47:28 [deiu]
... then we can have a general conception without tying into TLS
15:47:35 [kidehen]
bblfish: you interop doc covers the matter, fine.
15:47:39 [kidehen]
15:47:40 [deiu]
... the problems is not to make it too general
15:47:43 [betehess_laptop]
[bblfish commenting on the definitions]
15:48:01 [oberger]
15:48:08 [bblfish]
15:48:57 [betehess_laptop]
q+ to ask if people have goals to be met by a definition
15:50:00 [deiu]
timbl: people agreed at TPAC to go for hash URIs, to make it easy to use on the web
15:50:46 [deiu]
... it's important to be able to have a minimal WebID profile (pseudonyms)
15:51:23 [deiu]
MacTed: what came out of TPAC is stuff that only the people in the room agreed with
15:51:23 [bblfish]
15:51:48 [bblfish]
must be available as Turtle
15:51:54 [bblfish]
is that ok?
15:52:06 [deiu]
15:52:15 [oberger]
is available == retrievable through HTTP GET ?
15:53:52 [oberger]
15:54:07 [deiu]
MacTed: be liberal in what you accept and conservative in what you generate
15:54:31 [betehess_laptop]
bblfish, please enforce the queue
15:54:39 [kidehen]
not true
15:54:59 [deiu]
MacTed, please respect the queue
15:55:05 [bblfish]
15:55:07 [kidehen]
we've implemented ldap: acct: mailto: http: https: etc.. Also re. http, we have hash and hashless supported
15:55:35 [oberger]
discussing a MUST vs a SHOULD.... ah, always the same thing
15:55:36 [kidehen]
bblfish: what happens when verifiers fault on our hashless WebIDs? We have 30K+ WebIDs already
15:56:04 [bblfish]
Timbl is making a distinction between web architecture document and the protocol document.
15:56:37 [bblfish]
the protocol document should be more precise and explain precisely how do do that
15:57:11 [kidehen]
Timbl: this is an important point. "Protocol Spec" a technical spec. +1 for your explanation. So you have a conceptual spec and a protocol implementation spec. That spec can be an HTTP based/oriented implemented spec
15:57:57 [kidehen]
15:58:13 [deiu]
15:59:05 [kidehen]
timbl: the spec (even if for an HTTP based protocol) has to mesh nicely with Linked Data principles, which then meshes with AWWW.
16:00:09 [timbl]
16:00:14 [timbl]
16:00:28 [timbl]
ack b
16:00:29 [Zakim]
betehess_laptop, you wanted to ask if people have goals to be met by a definition
16:01:24 [deiu]
betehess_laptop: we decided at TPAC that WebID has to exist on the web, and we want to make sure that people are not confusing the agent/person with the document describing them
16:02:05 [oberger]
should the WebID be a LDP Resource ?
16:02:20 [bblfish]
betehess_laptop: what do you make of this definition
16:02:23 [deiu]
betehess_laptop: we need to have a minimal set of expectation for implementation reasons
16:02:36 [oberger]
(hence bouncing the HTTP vs other things to the LDP WG ;)
16:02:41 [bblfish]
16:02:43 [kidehen]
at this point, let's concede that because of "Web" one assumes a WebID is HTTP URI based
16:02:48 [MacTed]
and here we have (again) the difference between "a WebID" and "the WebID Protocol"
16:02:59 [kidehen]
MacTed: +1
16:03:15 [oberger]
16:03:26 [MacTed]
feels like "RDF" and "RDF/XML" all over again
16:03:31 [deiu]
bblfish: the profile has to say something about the WebID
16:03:58 [deiu]
... the public key doesn't tell anything about the person; it can be replaced by OpenID, OAuth, etc.
16:04:07 [betehess_laptop]
"The URI without the hash denotes the WebID Profile. " is not accurate: you don't denote documents
16:04:23 [kidehen]
bblfish: you put the public key in description graph (profile document content)
16:05:11 [kidehen]
bblfish: +1 uniqueness pursuit in the form of RDF that semantically delivers that
16:05:27 [oberger]
So is an OpenID a WebID, betehess_laptop ?
16:06:02 [kidehen]
we have three things: WebID, WebID Profile Documents, and WebID Authentication protocol . We can define them clearly
16:06:11 [betehess_laptop]
oberger, does it use hash uris? can I get some RDF/Turtle?
16:06:32 [betehess_laptop]
oberger, does it use hash uris? can I get *at least* RDF/Turtle?
16:06:49 [oberger]
betehess_laptop, most probably not in general ;)
16:06:51 [betehess_laptop]
kidehen, that's what we did
16:06:53 [deiu]
16:07:11 [kidehen]
betehess_laptop: no you didn't :-)
16:07:39 [kidehen]
betehess_laptop: is getting us closer
16:07:51 [betehess_laptop]
kidehen, please read the minutes of the TPAC f2f
16:08:10 [kidehen]
betehess_laptop: I've read them, stop saying that, please
16:08:25 [kidehen]
betehess_laptop: focus on:
16:08:27 [bblfish]
16:08:29 [betehess_laptop]
well, then you know where we decoupled the concepts and definitions
16:08:50 [MacTed]
betehess_laptop - the minutes content doesn't change what the output definition said. and the definition didn't reflect what you are saying here.
16:08:51 [betehess_laptop]
and decided to split the specs
16:08:53 [oberger]
what's the length of the call in principle ?
16:09:10 [betehess_laptop]
MacTed, I'd say that only you and kidehen thing that
16:09:10 [kidehen]
betehess_laptop: in, we need WebID, WebID Profile Document, WebID Protocol
16:09:52 [betehess_laptop]
kidehen, if the editors of this document didn't reflect what the group decided during TPAC, then there is no value to discus this particular document
16:10:02 [bblfish]
16:10:04 [timbl]
16:10:05 [kidehen]
betehess_laptop: for a reason, we've already implemented and have hardcore experience with the real problems of interoperability and the enterprise hence ldap: acct: mailtoP etc. .hence the stuff Trueg: demonstrated at TPAC and more
16:10:33 [betehess_laptop]
kidehen, the fact that you have an implementation does not mean that as an implementer I'll follow yours...
16:10:56 [kidehen]
betehess_laptop: why would you follow my implementation? I am implementing standards.
16:11:09 [deiu]
16:11:15 [bblfish]
16:11:16 [betehess_laptop]
kidehen, and there is no standard re: webid...
16:11:21 [deiu]
ack deiu
16:11:41 [kidehen]
betehess_laptop: there are standards for: identifiers, data access protocols, data representation, authentication etc
16:11:46 [bblfish]
Todo: Two specs one for WebID and one WebID Auth over TLS
16:11:54 [kidehen]
bblfish: +1
16:11:57 [bblfish]
16:12:05 [betehess_laptop]
kidehen, this meeting is about webid, not webarch
16:12:40 [kidehen]
betehess_laptop: you are missing the point of interop. Let's move on
16:12:58 [bblfish]
16:13:11 [betehess_laptop]
kidehen, I prefer to move *forward* instead of in circle. all of this is "deja vu* for me
16:13:23 [kidehen]
betehess_laptop: ok.
16:14:03 [oberger]
betehess_laptop, you're too old most probably ;)
16:14:19 [betehess_laptop]
oberger, must be that :-)
16:14:27 [deiu]
Can we set some priorities please?
16:14:29 [bblfish]
16:14:30 [kidehen]
bblfish: +1 re. that doc
16:15:21 [oberger]
or there may be phone call backs (ringing in the back)
16:15:57 [bblfish]
16:16:00 [deiu]
Please let's focus on setting priorities.
16:16:17 [deiu]
16:17:03 [kidehen]
bblfish: we have three definitions to finalize: WebID, WebID Profile Document, WebID Authentication Protocol
16:17:22 [oberger]
kidehen, /me think the forst 2 should be in the same spec
16:18:36 [deiu]
oberger, +1
16:18:36 [betehess_laptop]
during TPAC, we identified that "WebID Authentication Protocol" should actually refer to TLS in order to accept other authentication protocols in the future
16:19:28 [deiu]
ack deiu
16:19:44 [betehess_laptop]
q+ to ask people about goals
16:19:48 [kidehen]
bblfish: WebID just resolves to a profile document.
16:20:05 [kidehen]
bblfish: the profile document as profile oriented structured content
16:20:10 [kidehen]
16:21:15 [webr3]
RRSAgent, pointer?
16:21:15 [RRSAgent]
16:21:31 [oberger]
16:21:50 [betehess_laptop]
kidehen: I still don't want hash uris
16:22:13 [bblfish]
16:22:19 [oberger]
MUST for HTTP, and SHOULD for hashed URI
16:22:48 [bblfish]
that was alex bertails speaking
16:22:59 [deiu]
oberger, +1 to that
16:24:36 [betehess_laptop]
16:24:43 [bblfish]
qh yes
16:24:44 [MacTed]
except some (Several? all?) flavors of IE...
16:25:03 [bblfish]
IT is true that one has to check the URI for a hash before doing any dereferencing it
16:25:14 [bblfish]
( I have to do that all the time )
16:25:45 [bblfish]
ack betehess_laptop
16:25:45 [Zakim]
betehess_laptop, you wanted to ask people about goals and to
16:25:47 [deiu]
ack betehess_laptop
16:26:05 [kidehen]
WebID verifier is a user agent
16:26:15 [kidehen]
it should work like any other HTTP user agent
16:26:19 [kidehen]
16:26:46 [bblfish]
zakim, who is making noise?
16:26:56 [Zakim]
bblfish, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: kidehen (34%), MacTed (36%), Timbl (43%)
16:27:00 [kidehen]
16:27:03 [kidehen]
16:27:05 [bblfish]
16:27:42 [kidehen]
HTTP URI may be hash or hashless, that's the standard
16:28:14 [kidehen]
curl -IL vs curl -I
16:28:54 [oberger]
betehess_laptop, should be spec that a WebID profile MUST be a LDP Resource ?
16:28:55 [deiu]
kidehen, yes, but WebID URIs should not be confused with the document URIs
16:29:05 [kidehen]
deiu: of course they aren't
16:29:11 [timbl]
16:29:12 [webr3]
if WebID Protocol didn't have Profiles, then this would be a non discussion - but because it does, we come down to the old range14,issue-57 arguments of whether to use hash or hashless, time has proven we'll never all agree.
16:29:20 [deiu]
yes they are, unless you add the # fragment
16:29:28 [kidehen]
deiu: no
16:29:29 [bblfish]
betehess_laptop: the 303 makes it impossible to work with ldp because it is difficult to find the document to publish something
16:29:29 [betehess_laptop]
oberger, I *personally* believe that it would be a good idea, eventually
16:29:46 [kidehen]
timbl: we work with any HTTP URI
16:29:52 [oberger]
betehess_laptop, +1 AFA LDP Resources may be sepcified some day ;)
16:30:35 [betehess_laptop]
oberger, well, I'm pretty confident that LDP WG will reach Rec at some point :-)
16:30:43 [bblfish]
timbl: it is very difficult to track 303's in Firefox, to program on the server side
16:30:48 [kidehen]
timbl: yes, it is a major pain, but it also provides great interop
16:31:01 [deiu]
oberger, from a logical p.o.v. a WebID profile document will always be an LDPR, as long as it is located in an LDPC
16:31:19 [bblfish]
... on the server side 303 it is easy to program but it is difficult for the users to understand and get on board
16:31:26 [bblfish]
16:31:36 [kidehen]
timbl: my only concern is that verifiers don't fault on hashless URIs.
16:31:47 [webr3]
conference is restricted, can't phone in??
16:31:56 [oberger]
deiu, /me wonders if hashed LDP Resources have been discussed anyhow in the LDP WG ;)
16:31:57 [MacTed]
16:31:58 [kidehen]
bblfish: -1 re. MUST
16:32:03 [deiu]
webr3, you should be able to (though we're overtime)
16:32:03 [MacTed]
MUST means that verifiers will fault at that point.
16:32:04 [bblfish]
timbl: arguing it should be MUST
16:32:05 [betehess_laptop]
deiu: actually, this is not true. because if it's an LDPR, then you explicitly enable Write as well
16:32:06 [MacTed]
16:32:14 [webr3]
deiu, ahh that's why, thanks
16:32:20 [kidehen]
bblfish: timbl : HTTP URI is fine
16:32:31 [kidehen]
bblfish: timbl: the utility is clear
16:32:40 [deiu]
betehess_laptop, there's nothing wrong with that, as long as you have ACL enabled for it
16:32:56 [MacTed]
SHOULD permits those who *can* handle 303s to do so.
16:33:02 [MacTed]
MUST says those who can, can't
16:33:05 [oberger]
if the WebID Profile document is a LDP C, then a contained WebID wouldn't necessarily be a hashed URI... :-/
16:33:08 [kidehen]
bblfish: can I explain the concern
16:33:12 [kidehen]
16:33:28 [oberger]
s/LDP C/LDP Container/
16:33:43 [webr3]
Who /needs/ a 303 here, are there hundreds of thousands of WebID profiles out there with non hash URIs?
16:33:46 [deiu]
oberger, a hash WebID URI is an abstract notation referring to the agent, not to the document
16:33:53 [betehess_laptop]
deiu, yes, but still, it raises the expectations. note: as I said earlier, I'm not against that at all as I think that the success of webid goes with the success of LDP
16:33:57 [kidehen]
webr3: we have 30K+
16:34:08 [kidehen]
webr3: our customers all have WebIDs
16:34:17 [oberger]
deiu, yes, but several agents in the family's document makes sense of a LDP Container...
16:34:34 [kidehen]
16:34:36 [webr3]
kidehen, why did they all get 303 URIs rather than frag ones? (out of interest)
16:34:47 [bblfish]
ack bblfish
16:34:52 [bblfish]
ack kidehen
16:36:50 [oberger]
q+ to ask whether the Document could be a LDP Container and WebIDs could be contained LDP Resources
16:36:59 [oberger]
Zakim, unmute me
16:36:59 [Zakim]
oberger should no longer be muted
16:39:54 [deiu]
16:40:10 [bblfish]
16:40:42 [timbl]
16:40:55 [webr3]
for any U, if U dereferences to a document D, and D asserts { U cert:key K }, then U is a WebID denoting some agent - so yes to LDP Container or anything else
16:41:20 [oberger]
kidehen, the number of customer shouldn't be an argument
16:42:24 [webr3]
kidehen, one customer or 3 million makes no difference, the argeument to consider is why hashless rather than hash uris, if we know why you provided them with hashless, then we can understand why others would need to aswell
16:42:27 [deiu]
kidehen, isn't that a design issue with your implementation?
16:42:39 [oberger]
16:43:24 [MacTed]
WebID verifiers MUST not fail on hashless, they MAY flag "there may be a performance burden here"
16:43:39 [deiu]
16:44:10 [oberger]
ack oberger
16:44:10 [Zakim]
oberger, you wanted to ask whether the Document could be a LDP Container and WebIDs could be contained LDP Resources
16:44:12 [kidehen]
deiu: we implemented WebID years ago
16:44:21 [kidehen]
deiu: ditto LInked Data solutons
16:44:24 [MacTed]
PROPOSED: WebID verifiers MUST not fail on hashless, they MAY flag "there may be a performance burden here"
16:44:29 [oberger]
yes I wanted... does anyone have a response ?
16:44:32 [deiu]
16:44:40 [MacTed]
Zakim, unmute oberger
16:44:40 [Zakim]
oberger was not muted, MacTed
16:44:58 [bblfish]
16:45:00 [kidehen]
MacTed: +1
16:45:01 [webr3]
'' they MAY flag "there may be a performance burden here" ''? how? where? when? mate be moot
16:45:04 [bblfish]
ack bblfish
16:45:20 [webr3]
MUST not fail on hashless makes sense, +1
16:45:24 [oberger]
the point is hashed uris may not be contained in a container
16:45:25 [kidehen]
WebID and LDP are orthogonal
16:45:51 [oberger]
I wanted to ask whether the Document could be a LDP Container and WebIDs could be contained LDP Resources
16:46:07 [oberger]
it's too hard by text
16:46:18 [timbl]
reboot your phone
16:46:28 [deiu]
oberger, open an Issue for that maybe?
16:46:33 [betehess_laptop]
must be using Windows
16:46:58 [MacTed]
I'd like to get closure on that proposal...
16:47:01 [oberger]
we didn't discuss hash URIs for LDP Resources in the LDP F2F AFAIR... and I wonder whether stating that a WebID IS a LDP R can lead us to some contradiction
16:47:07 [kidehen]
bblfish: +1 re. action items
16:47:29 [betehess_laptop]
MacTed, it's not only about performance
16:47:33 [bblfish]
16:47:35 [MacTed]
I supposed as this is an informal call, it could be a straw poll.
16:47:40 [bblfish]
ack bblfish
16:47:51 [betehess_laptop]
MacTed, that's actually the least of my problems with 303s
16:47:59 [MacTed]
STRAW POLL: WebID verifiers MUST not fail on hashless, they MAY flag "there may be a performance (or other) burden here"
16:48:24 [bblfish]
Proposal: put the 303 issue in red in the spec
16:48:36 [betehess_laptop]
16:48:38 [bblfish]
16:48:39 [deiu]
16:48:44 [kidehen]
16:48:44 [MacTed]
issue: verifiers must not fail on hashless URI; they may flag performance or other burdens
16:48:45 [trackbot]
Created ISSUE-69 - Verifiers must not fail on hashless URI; they may flag performance or other burdens ; please complete additional details at .
16:49:11 [kidehen]
I am +1 for the issue
16:49:34 [kidehen]
bblfish: RWW please
16:49:49 [kidehen]
bblfish: remember we have RWW-0. timbl: yes re. gravity
16:49:55 [bblfish]
Public RWW mailing list
16:50:15 [betehess_laptop]
Zakim, betehess left
16:50:15 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'betehess left', betehess_laptop
16:50:18 [betehess_laptop]
Zakim, betehess just left
16:50:18 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'betehess just left', betehess_laptop
16:50:48 [oberger]
JS APIs ;-)
16:51:13 [kidehen]
trueg: this is where ODS APIs come in
16:51:14 [bblfish]
timbl: we can discuss WebAccessControl on list
16:51:23 [bblfish]
... and API
16:51:52 [bblfish]
16:51:59 [deiu]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:51:59 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate deiu
16:52:00 [oberger]
see ya
16:52:02 [kidehen]
16:52:03 [kidehen]
16:52:06 [bblfish]
16:52:07 [Zakim]
16:52:09 [deiu]
RRSAgent, make minutes public
16:52:09 [RRSAgent]
I'm logging. I don't understand 'make minutes public', deiu. Try /msg RRSAgent help
16:52:11 [Zakim]
16:52:13 [Zakim]
16:52:14 [Zakim]
16:52:16 [Zakim]
16:52:16 [Zakim]
16:52:31 [oberger]
f*cking empathy voip backend :-(
16:52:31 [MacTed]
RRSAgent, make logs public
16:52:42 [MacTed]
Zakim, who's here?
16:52:42 [Zakim]
On the phone I see deiu
16:52:44 [Zakim]
On IRC I see betehess_laptop, timbl, MacTed, bblfish, melvster, Zakim, RRSAgent, deiu, trueg, magnetik, oberger, jmvanel, webr3, trackbot, sandro, mischat, elf-pavlik, bergi
16:52:50 [Zakim]
16:52:52 [Zakim]
INC_WEBID(WEBID)10:00AM has ended
16:52:52 [Zakim]
Attendees were bblfish, deiu, +, trueg, oberger, MacTed, kidehen, Timbl, with, betehess
16:52:57 [MacTed]
trackbot, end meeting
16:52:57 [trackbot]
Zakim, list attendees
16:52:58 [Zakim]
sorry, trackbot, I don't know what conference this is
16:53:05 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:53:05 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate trackbot
16:53:06 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, bye
16:53:06 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items