<trackbot> Date: 26 November 2012

<dret> that's a good explanation for the silence!

<Arnaud> :)

<AshokMalhotra> Steve, needs a ? at the end

<SteveBattle> ta

Minutes from last week

<SteveS> have read and look good

<SteveBattle> I have read them

<dret> they look good!

<SteveBattle> arnaud: minutes approved

Actions and Issues

<ericP> scribenick: ericP

<deiu> issue-40?

<trackbot> ISSUE-40 -- creating/deleting/changing non RDF resources -- raised

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/40

Arnaud: issue is against the UC&R (not the spec)
... but we have a similar story so not sure what's new

SteveBattle: agreed. not sure what to do about it

<BartvanLeeuwen> +1 to wait for henry

SteveBattle: we don't have a story about sharing binary resources

<SteveBattle> Arnaud: a new issue-40 was raised about sharing binary resources

[ tabled 'till Henry is around ]

<scribe> scribenick: SteveBattle

Arnaud: issue-7 as pending review
... Today is the deadline for suggesting test-suite / testing proposals

<Arnaud> ack?

Arnaud: Not much has been contributed so far

<deiu> I'll write

<deiu> My point is that we've not decided on the model

<deiu> it's difficult to try and propose a test suite if we don't know what exactly to test for

<deiu> (other than existing stuff from the spec)

<dret> ISSUE-37 seems to be holding up quite a number of things

Aranud: We need suggestions/ideas about frameworks for testing

<deiu> Yeah, he's got about two tests working so far

<deiu> We've been collaborating on that matter

<bblfish> hi

<deiu> (Alexander)

Arnaud: We do have >1 proposal. Maybe we have enough to be getting on with?

We have until end of play today to make additional suggestions

<bblfish> thanks deiu

Test Suite and Validation (retrospectively)

Arnaud: You have until end of today to contribute ideas.

Use Cases and Requirements

<ericP> SteveBattle: SteveS and I had an editorial meeting last week

<ericP> ... added a timetable at the beginning

<ericP> ... we asked folks last week to review the user stories

<ericP> ... we moved out the RESTful Interactions "user story" as it was more architectural

<ericP> ... the section on sharing binary resources and metadata needs the most work

<ericP> ... will send a request from that use case's advocate after the call

<ericP> ... we asked folks to directly edit user stories. saw some edits

<ericP> ... we still need eyes on these user stories and editorial work to get them to look similar

<ericP> ... otherwise they get deleted

<ericP> ... hoping to get to FPWD this year

<ericP> SteveS: waiting for answer on publishing moritorium for end of year

<ericP> sandro: off the top of my head, i think it's the last two weeks

<ericP> SteveBattle: ericP owes editorial text

<ericP> ericP: roger that

<ericP> Arnaud: so we're waiting from some editorial work from advocates, hoping for review in one week

<ericP> ... seems optimistic that we can get reviews and responses by the 17th

I'll take the wheel

LDP Specification

steveS: Working to track editorial suggestions by David Wood

Issues

<ericP> issue-37

<deiu> issue-37?

<trackbot> ISSUE-37 -- What is the LDP data model and the LDP interaction model? -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/37

Talking about ISSUE-37

<bblfish> my question was: has dealing with user stories changed now? We no longer need to issue a ticket to change user stories? We just edit the wiki?

<Arnaud> bblfish: no, for new stories you still need to submit issues, otherwise coordinate with editors

<bblfish> ok

<Zakim> bblfish, you wanted to has dealing with user stories changed now? We no longer need to issue a ticket to change user stories? We just edit the wiki?

We need the editors to suggest a way forward on this

<bblfish> thanks

SteveS: Will take this as an action

bblfish: We need more discussion about the model. My plan is to take this outline and consolidate what we have on the wiki.

dret: Shall I create a wiki page?

<bblfish> ah?

<AshokMalhotra> dret, please create the wiki page

dret: OK, I'll do that, and when it is stable we'll discuss how to move that into the spec.

<bblfish> SteveBattle: I think you mean dret, not me :-)

Sorry - didn't recognise the voice :(

<bblfish> SteveBattle: I am on train with low connectivity

Arnaud: Issue-31: Does anybody disagree that we need a conformance section?

<bblfish> Issue-31?

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

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

who is the speaker - is that dret?

sandro: The spec adds additional things like container deletion etc.

Arnaud: It makes sense to have a compliance section
... I'm happy to close issue-31 and let editors add a conformance section.

SteveS: I accept the action.

<Arnaud> RESOLVED: close issue-31: agreed

Arnaud: closing issue-31

<Arnaud> ACTION: steves, add a conformance section to LDP spec [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/26-ldp-minutes.html#action01]

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

<dret> sorry: yes, SteveBattle, that was me.

<Arnaud> ACTION: steves, add a conformance section to LDP spec [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/26-ldp-minutes.html#action02]

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

ISSUE-29

<bblfish> Issue-29?

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

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

Arnaud: This concerns the F2F where TBL implored us to support relative URIs in GETas well as PUT/POST
... What does this mean for the spec?

Sandro: I don't think this is a should/must for the spec. It's best practice.

<Zakim> ericP, you wanted to promote examples

ericP: moot

<ericP> ericP: was going to say what sandro said

<ericP> SteveBattle: we could discuss best practice in the Primer

<dret> +1 to Arnaud

<SteveS> deiu "best practices" page I believe is started at http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Deployment_Guide

<ericP> ... for instance, when describing GET requests, we could describe best practice

<bblfish> I think relative URIs need to go into a section of the main spec when discussing POST for example

Sandro: A throw-away couple of words could convey the idea
... A well-written primer can convey this informally.

<deiu> SteveS, cheers (though that page is pretty useless at this point)

<SteveS> deiu got to start somewhere

Arnaud: I haven't heard anyone say we need to change the spec.

<dret> primer or best practices, but spec would probably be the wrong place

<deiu> SteveS, I plan to do that, together with Alexandre (already started something internally)

SteveS: This is currently listed in the deployment spec.

<SteveS> See deployment guide http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Deployment_Guide

<ericP> SteveS: it's already in the deployment guide which cygri started

<ericP> SteveBattle: i confused about the Deployment Guide vs. the Primer

Arnaud: The primer is an introduction to the technology

<SteveS> The document itself says its purpose is: "This page collects various informative material, including best practices, design patterns and anti-patterns, related to LDP. It may or may not become a formal deliverable of the Working Group."

The deployment guide accompanies the spec for experts.

<ericP> Arnaud: as i understand it, the Primer is for non-experts. the Deployment Guide is meant to complement the spec for experts

<Zakim> bblfish, you wanted to I think that examples in the spec should contain relative URIs when possible

<bblfish> I think that examples in the spec should contain relative URIs when possible

Ashok: I agree, examples in the spec should show this.

SteveS: Yes we have examples that could use relative URIs.

<Arnaud> ACTION: sspeiche, check the LDP spec for examples in which relative URLs might be used [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/26-ldp-minutes.html#action03]

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

<Arnaud> ACTION: steves, check the LDP spec for examples in which relative URLs might be used [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/26-ldp-minutes.html#action04]

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

Arnaud: Proposing that we close issue-29

+1

<Arnaud> +1

<deiu> +1

<svillata> +1

<krp> +1

<SteveS> +1

<AshokMalhotra> +1

<nmihindu> +1

<oberger_> regrets

<sandro> +1

<dret> +1

<Arnaud> RESOLVED: Close issue-29: it's a best practice covered in the deployment guide and examples in the LDP spec

<bblfish> yes patch is important :-)

Arnaud: We have 3 issues relating to PATCH. 12, 17, 27

SteveS: I can gather the information together. There was some work done with tabulator and the R/W web.
... The R/W web and tabulator use some subset of SPARQL update.

<MacTed> issue-2?

<trackbot> ISSUE-2 -- Do BPR versions get managed in a systematic, discoverable way? -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/2

<MacTed> issue-3?

<trackbot> ISSUE-3 -- Do BPC versions get managed in a systematic, discoverable way? -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/3

Arnaud: Do we want to do versioning? Issues 2 and 3

<bblfish> versioning is a modelling issue I think. I wrote a versioning model once

Arnaud: Maybe we shouldn't discuss this now, AndyS is the owner.

<dret> i read that as versioning LDP content, not the protocol

<dret> and i recommend to stay away from this for LDP core; it's a very complex issue.

Arnaud: Is versioning handled by LDP or the application?\

<dret> WebDAV

<MacTed> WebDAV...

ericP: Are there precedents?

Do we want to do it at all? It can get really ugly.

<krp> also memento for time-based versioning http://www.mementoweb.org/guide/rfc/ID/ (but agree, better to decide whether we need to do this)

unsure of the speaker

<Arnaud> speaker is dret

<AshokMalhotra> can soemone make a proposal?

Arnaud: I'm sensing that the group isn't in favour of handling versioning in the spec.

<dret> it's a good feature, but not MMF.

<dret> +1

<ericP> AndyS, dret proposed that we not handle versioning unless there's a strong proponent. there was general support for this position.

Arnaud: move issue 2/3 to pending review
... Remember the best way to make progress is to make a proposal.

see minutes for last meeting.

<dret> thanks Arnaud, thanks SteveBattle, thanks everybody!

bye

<bblfish> I must have missed the end

<bblfish> have the meeting minutes been published?

<bblfish> ah I think they are still protected

<MacTed> 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)

Succeeded: s/close/ /
Succeeded: s/bblfish/dret/
Succeeded: s/bblfish/dret/
Succeeded: s/Henry,/dret,/
Succeeded: s/fret/dret/
Found ScribeNick: ericP
Found ScribeNick: SteveBattle
Inferring Scribes: ericP, SteveBattle
Scribes: ericP, SteveBattle
ScribeNicks: ericP, SteveBattle
Default Present: dret, BartvanLeeuwen, +44.754.550.aaaa, SteveS, Ruben, Arnaud, deiu, MacTed, Ashok_Malhotra, SteveBattle, EricP, Yves, nmihindu, oberger, krp, Sandro, svillata, bblfish
Present: dret BartvanLeeuwen +44.754.550.aaaa SteveS Ruben Arnaud deiu MacTed Ashok_Malhotra SteveBattle EricP Yves nmihindu oberger krp Sandro svillata bblfish

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

Found Date: 26 Nov 2012
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2012/11/26-ldp-minutes.html
People with action items: sspeiche steves