Linked Data Platform (LDP) Working Group Teleconference

10 Dec 2012

See also: IRC log


Arnaud, dret, SteveS, bblfish, Ashok_Malhotra, AndyS, Yves, rogerm, +44.754.550.aabb, SteveBattle, nmihindu, JohnArwe, MacTed, krp, ??P9, cygri, ericP, svillata, [GVoice], deiu


<trackbot> Date: 10 December 2012

<Arnaud> dret, it's "here"

<Arnaud> zakim is picky

<dret> hello everybody!


<AndyS> zaki, ??P27 is me


<SteveBattle> Sorry if it was me

this is like zork

go west

<MacTed> best to ignore unidentified caller...

<JohnArwe> ruben and sandro emailed regrets

I can

ok, sometimes my connection breaks

Previous meeting minutes

<SteveBattle> +1

+1 read it but was not there

JohnArwe: So there was an indexical problem under 4 proposed and resolved, not clear who it was

APPROVED: minutes of last week

Next year's F2F meeting

there seems to have been at TPAC a preference for March

Arnaud: going over the situation as decided by TPAC and available online ( xxx ? )

SteveSpeicher: Proposed Boston
... for reasons of it being close to a lot of people.

Arnaud: was wondering how to go about this. A Poll?, ....
... nobody seems to be voicing an opinion one way or the other.

<SteveS> +1 for 3 days, since we go through the trouble of traveling that far

Arnaud: 14-16 of March seems is discussed. but 13-15 would be better as it does not cover meeting on saturday

<SteveBattle> +1 for 3 days

roger: supports 3 days

<JohnArwe> march 16 is a saturday too

Arnaud: 13-15 in Boston would be the proposal
... needs to verify with MIT
... if those dates are workable

ashok: why not start on the 12, which is Tuesday?

Arnaud: Bart had a conflict on Tuesday
... assuming that Erik can get the meeting rooms....

Eric is looking in his calendar

Eric: ... not the coolest room ( which is not the one next to the bar ) but with a bit of money one can get the bar
... those who sponsor the event get their name somewhere, and people can toast your company
... 13-15 is possible on the 8th floor of Stella

Arnaud: this is going to be the default then

Actions and Issues

Arnaud: anyone want to claim his actions
... We are at Actions here

<dret> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/ISSUE-37

which action are we speaking of?

me. got lost sorry.

Arnaud: we can close the Action

close action-32

<trackbot> ACTION-32 create wiki page to structure and consolidate discussions around LDP model (ISSUE-37) closed


<trackbot> ACTION-32 -- Erik Wilde to create wiki page to structure and consolidate discussions around LDP model (ISSUE-37) -- due 2012-12-03 -- CLOSED

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

Arnaud: Let's look at Issues...


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

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


<trackbot> ISSUE-41 -- Standard way to manage members with attachments -- raised

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/41

SteveBattle: Added the corresponding use case 8 for this, so Issue-40 can be opened and closed.

open Issue-40

open issue-40

set Issue-40 to pending review

talking about Issue-41

SteveBattle: has added scenarios covering Issue-41 to use case 8
... so this can put to pending review

please set it

ok, I updated it to pending rewview

Use Cases And Requirements

Arnaud: Is the document ready for review

<SteveBattle> I've dropped off the call

SteveBattle: do you believe it is ready for review?

<ericP> SteveBattle, do you want to push fro WG review on UC&R today?

<SteveBattle> Yes please

<ericP> roger

<SteveBattle> We'll freeze the document for the coming week.

So the plan is for the WG to review the UCR for next monday

Arnaud: So the aim is to get the document to be published before the end of the year

<SteveBattle> OK - I'm back

people need to look at what is in there.

SteveBattle: asking people to review the content, the examples, is there something that should be taken out, is in scope, ...

Arnaud: we can annotate the document with open issues.
... so that we don't have to resolve the issues, but we can annotate them

SteveBattle: Please try to get reviews in before Friday...

who is speaking?

<Arnaud> ericp

<ericP> SOTD: The WG intends to address the use cases and requirements in the document. Other use cases and requirements may be added in the future. We invite community feedback on these and other use cases.

ericp: propose a status of the document so that people would know ( ? )
... so reviewers can understand what they are reviewing to

<SteveS> +1 to ericP's SOTD

<SteveBattle> OK - we'll add that.

ericp: an html version of this document that passes the pubrules requirements
... there is a wiki page somewhere explaining this ( please point us to it if you have it )

SteveSpeicher: we'll use respec version 3

ericP: we need to look at what the short name should be

SteveSpeicher: ldp-ucr?

<SteveBattle> That's what we're pushing for :)

Arnaud: it would be great if we can publish this before the end of the year

LDP spec

Arnaud: the charter requires a refresh of the spec, beginning of 2013 January
... but I am not sure we have made enough progress
... and it is good to help us make progress

steves: looking at issue 38

<JohnArwe> I also expect to spend a block of time over the holidays trying to clean up anything I can on spec.

Steve Speicher: looking at issue 38 and this could make some changes to spec

<SteveS> s/Steve Spiker/ SteveS/

Ashok: you have written up the AtomPub part but ours is somewhat different, where we can create and delete collections, so then we have to speak of collections, what happens to the members
... we are doing something more complex indeed that AtomPub, but we have it

SteveS: we have issues for this on this

who is speaking?

<Arnaud> dret

dret: we can link open issues to this page ( which one again?)

<dret> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/ISSUE-37 is the page


Ashok: are you asking that I should editi the wiki page that dret wrote up.

Arnaud: everybody should be ok to edit this page

dret: that's ok I did this for AtomPub, and I think it would be good if other people can do the same for other protocols
... it is useful to help see what kinds of questions we need to answer.

Arnaud: this page gives us a framework.
... regarding the issues, we can have references from that wiki page to the open issues

MacTed: this page is to expose issues by analysing these other protocols in parallel to our stuff.

agreement all around.

MacTed: requests a bit richer use of html
... in the first paragraph "any atompub server exposes a "service document" (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5023#section-8) "

this should be [http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5023#section-8 service document]

dret: I'll do that, just had pasted my e-mail to the wiki

<MacTed> ack


<MacTed> issue-30?

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

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

<Arnaud> ack

SteveBattle: this is can be closed, it was moved to ucr

<MacTed> PROPOSAL: close issue-30, it was moved to UCR

<SteveBattle> +1

<SteveS> +1

<MacTed> +1

<cygri> +1

<svillata> +1

<Arnaud> +1

<krp> +1

<rogerm> +1

close issue-30

<trackbot> ISSUE-30 Hierarchical bugtracking service closed

<MacTed> RESOLVED: close issue-30, it was moved to UCR

Arnaud: the only way to make progress is to close these issues
... and this needs proposals
... so is suggesting to go down the list and propose to close the issue
... and so if people don't have proposals then the issue gets closed

<dret> thanks everybody!

<SteveBattle> Thanks

MacTed: suggests that there should be a heads up on which issues should be decided in the topics for the teleconf

<svillata> bye


<MacTed> trackbot, end meeting

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.137 (CVS log)
$Date: 2012-12-10 16:04:05 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
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/someone/JohnArwe/
Succeeded: s/xyz/SteveSpeicher/
Succeeded: s/does not cover meeting/does not cover meeting on saturday/
Succeeded: s/Where at/We are at/
Succeeded: s/SteveBattle/SteveSpeicher/
Succeeded: s/eyar/year/
Succeeded: s/dret/steves/
Succeeded: s/Spiker/Speicher/
FAILED: s/Steve Spiker/ SteveS/
Succeeded: s/xxx/Ashok/
No ScribeNick specified.  Guessing ScribeNick: bblfish
Inferring Scribes: bblfish
Default Present: Arnaud, dret, SteveS, bblfish, Ashok_Malhotra, AndyS, Yves, rogerm, +44.754.550.aabb, SteveBattle, nmihindu, JohnArwe, MacTed, krp, ??P9, cygri, ericP, svillata, [GVoice], deiu
Present: Arnaud dret SteveS bblfish Ashok_Malhotra AndyS Yves rogerm +44.754.550.aabb SteveBattle nmihindu JohnArwe MacTed krp ??P9 cygri ericP svillata [GVoice] deiu

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

Found Date: 10 Dec 2012
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2012/12/10-ldp-minutes.html
People with action items: 

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]