Chatlog 2012-12-03

From Linked Data Platform
Jump to: navigation, search

See original RRSAgent log or preview nicely formatted version.

Please justify/explain all edits to this page, in your "edit summary" text.

14:57:27 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #ldp
14:57:27 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/12/03-ldp-irc
14:57:29 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
14:57:29 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #ldp
14:57:31 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be LDP
14:57:31 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_LDP()10:00AM scheduled to start in 3 minutes
14:57:32 <trackbot> Meeting: Linked Data Platform (LDP) Working Group Teleconference
14:57:32 <trackbot> Date: 03 December 2012
14:57:40 <Ruben1> Ruben1 has joined #ldp
14:58:00 <Zakim> SW_LDP()10:00AM has now started
14:58:06 <Zakim> +Ruben
14:58:43 <Yves> regrets for me, on another call
15:00:02 <Zakim> +[IBM]
15:00:07 <Ashok_Malhotra> Ashok_Malhotra has joined #ldp
15:00:13 <Zakim> +Arnaud
15:00:16 <SteveS> Zakim, [IBM] is me
15:00:16 <Zakim> +SteveS; got it
15:00:32 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software
15:00:40 <MacTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
15:00:40 <Zakim> +MacTed; got it
15:00:41 <MacTed> Zakim, mute me
15:00:41 <Zakim> MacTed should now be muted
15:01:20 <Zakim> +??P3
15:01:32 <Zakim> -??P3
15:01:54 <Zakim> +Ashok_Malhotra
15:02:14 <Zakim> +??P39
15:02:21 <BartvanLeeuwen> Zakim, ??P39 is me
15:02:21 <Zakim> +BartvanLeeuwen; got it
15:02:26 <MacTed> Zakim, who's here?
15:02:26 <Zakim> On the phone I see Ruben, SteveS, Arnaud, MacTed (muted), Ashok_Malhotra, BartvanLeeuwen
15:02:28 <Zakim> On IRC I see Ashok_Malhotra, Ruben1, Zakim, RRSAgent, stevebattle, BartvanLeeuwen, bhyland, deiu, MacTed, SteveS, AndyS, webr3, gavinc, Arnaud, sandro, Yves, trackbot
15:03:02 <ericP> ericP has joined #ldp
15:03:03 <AndyS> Partial apologies - IRC only at the moment.
15:03:35 <rogerm> rogerm has joined #ldp
15:03:40 <Zakim> + +44.208.573.aaaa
15:04:04 <Arnaud> andy, we've got 3 issues pending review for you
15:04:09 <Arnaud> have you seen this?
15:04:25 <Zakim> +[GVoice]
15:04:44 <Zakim> +Sandro
15:05:34 <Arnaud> zakim, who's here?
15:05:34 <Zakim> On the phone I see Ruben, SteveS, Arnaud, MacTed (muted), Ashok_Malhotra, BartvanLeeuwen, +44.208.573.aaaa, ericP, Sandro
15:05:36 <Zakim> On IRC I see rogerm, ericP, Ashok_Malhotra, Ruben1, Zakim, RRSAgent, stevebattle, BartvanLeeuwen, bhyland, deiu, MacTed, SteveS, AndyS, webr3, gavinc, Arnaud, sandro, Yves,
15:05:36 <Zakim> ... trackbot
15:06:27 <MacTed> Zakim. aaaa is rogerm
15:06:38 <MacTed> Zakim, aaaa is rogerm
15:06:39 <Zakim> +rogerm; got it
15:06:41 <MacTed> :-)
15:06:54 <AndyS> Arnaud - numbers? pointers? I see 15 and 36 as open.  No actions outstanding.
15:07:01 <Arnaud> chair: Arnaud
15:07:01 <Arnaud> scribe: rogerm
15:07:11 <krp> krp has joined #ldp
#15:07:36 <rogerm> can someone please refer me to the zakim syntax guide please ?
#15:07:56 <Ruben1> http://www.w3.org/2001/12/zakim-irc-bot
#15:08:11 <BartvanLeeuwen> rogerm: http://www.w3.org/2008/04/scribe.html
15:08:19 <Ruben> Ruben has joined #ldp
<rogerm> topic: Minutes of 26 November 2012
<rogerm> Arnaud: has anyone looked at them?
15:08:29 <Ruben> yes, approve
15:08:35 <SteveS> looked at and approve
15:08:43 <BartvanLeeuwen> +1
#15:09:01 <rogerm> minutes approved
#15:09:10 <rogerm> resolve; minutes approved
15:09:21 <rogerm> resolved: minutes 26 November 2012 of approved
15:10:59 <rogerm> 10th and 17th December are the remaining calls this year.
15:11:13 <rogerm> topic: Actions and Issues
<rogerm> subtopic: Actions
<rogerm> Arnaud: anyone wants to claim victory on any of the open issues?
<rogerm> ... hearing none, let's move on to issues
15:14:09 <rogerm> subtopic: Issue-2 and Issue-3
15:11:14 <Zakim> +SteveBattle
15:11:44 <AndyS> AndyS has joined #ldp
15:11:46 <Arnaud> andys, issues pending review: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/pendingreview
15:12:08 <Zakim> +??P52
15:12:09 <Arnaud> those three are really for you to confirm it's ok to close
15:12:19 <Kalpa> Kalpa has joined #ldp
15:12:37 <krp> zakim, ??P52 is me
15:12:38 <Zakim> +krp; got it
15:12:41 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
15:12:47 <AndyS> zakim, IPCaller is me
15:12:47 <Zakim> +AndyS; got it
15:12:57 <rogerm> issues 2,3 and 7 are pending review
15:13:34 <SteveS> ISSUE-2 ?
15:13:34 <trackbot> ISSUE-2 -- Do BPResource versions get managed in a systematic, discoverable way? -- pending review
15:13:34 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/2
15:13:39 <SteveS> ISSUE-3 ?
15:13:39 <trackbot> ISSUE-3 -- Do BPContainer versions get managed in a systematic, discoverable way? -- pending review
15:13:39 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/3
<rogerm> Arnaud: andys, are you ok with the decision to close these issues on the basis that LDP won't address them?
<rogerm> andys: yes, that's reasonable
15:14:42 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: close issue-2
15:14:42 <Arnaud> close issue-2
15:14:42 <trackbot> ISSUE-2 Do BPResource versions get managed in a systematic, discoverable way? closed
15:14:48 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: close issue-3
15:14:48 <Arnaud> close issue-3
15:14:48 <trackbot> ISSUE-3 Do BPContainer versions get managed in a systematic, discoverable way? closed
<rogerm> andys: can we please have an explanation of why we are closing them inserted in tracker?
<rogerm> Arnaud: yes, I'll make sure there is a note
15:15:34 <rogerm> subtopic: Issue-7
15:15:34 <SteveS> ISSUE-7 ?
15:15:34 <trackbot> ISSUE-7 -- What operations are permitted on containers and how do they get invoked? -- pending review
15:15:34 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/7
15:16:12 <Zakim> -krp
15:16:23 <SteveS> This might refresh AndyS memory on where this is left http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2012Nov/0079.html
15:17:09 <Zakim> +??P52
15:17:09 <rogerm> Arnaud: can we close issue 7 because the content is covered elsewhere?
15:18:40 <rogerm> AndyS: a general model of the LDP framework would probably cover issue 7
<rogerm> ... we can reopen one if needed later on
15:18:43 <Arnaud> resolved: close issue-7
15:18:48 <Arnaud> close issue-7
15:18:48 <trackbot> ISSUE-7 What operations are permitted on containers and how do they get invoked? closed
#15:19:21 <rogerm> topic: issue 40
<rogerm> Arnaud: we also have some raised issues
15:19:29 <rogerm> subtopic: Issue-40
15:20:13 <Zakim> -??P52
15:20:26 <rogerm> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/40
#15:21:28 <stevebattle> good idea Steve
<rogerm> Arnaud: this one looks like it's covered already but we'll wait for Henry to be on to close it
15:21:37 <Zakim> +??P52
15:21:55 <rogerm> subtopic: Issue-41
15:22:14 <rogerm> stevebattle: issue 40 and 41 overlap
<rogerm> Arnaud: I think it differs in that it calls for several operations to be taken at the same time
<rogerm> ... but again let's wait to have John on the call to decide what to do with it
15:22:33 <AndyS> q+
15:22:53 <AndyS> q-
15:23:30 <rogerm> topic: Test suite and Validator
15:23:49 <rogerm> Arnaud: today was deadline for making proposals on this.
<rogerm> ... stevebattle added some requirement but otherwise it looks like we really only have one proposal
15:24:06 <stevebattle> They represent the same use-cases but different scenarios - single v multiple attachments.
15:26:36 <stevebattle> Do you know if Earl supports traceability?
15:27:07 <rogerm> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Testing
15:27:11 <stevebattle>  traceability: RDF links from test cases to use-cases.
15:27:27 <rogerm> ericp: Earl is an RDF language. it is used in the W3C, more and more tools are being developed for it
15:28:02 <AndyS> EARL + RDF/SPARQL Manifest framework.
15:28:05 <stevebattle> The power of RDF!
15:30:15 <stevebattle> I'd like to contribute test-cases (derived from use-case scenarios).
15:30:22 <rogerm> Arnaud: is Earl used in combination with HTTP-in-RDF vocab ?
<rogerm> steves: yes, that's my understanding
15:31:17 <bblfish> bblfish has joined #ldp
15:31:27 <rogerm> Arnaud: it would be great to have some examples of what the tests would actually look like.
<rogerm> ... I will follow up with Alexandre and see if he can give us some guidance
15:32:48 <Arnaud> q?
15:32:51 <Zakim> -??P52
15:33:01 <rogerm> q+
15:33:13 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: HTTP-in-RDF and EARL will be used for our test suite
15:33:18 <Zakim> +??P52
<rogerm> Arnaud: regarding the validator, we will see later but sandro said the W3C might be able to host a validator for servers
<rogerm> rogerm: what about validating clients?
15:35:13 <Arnaud> ack rogerm
15:35:42 <rogerm> sandro: there is more experience around validating a server
15:36:35 <SteveS> q+
15:36:46 <rogerm> sandro: another option is to download some client code to run locally
15:37:20 <Arnaud> ack steves
15:38:07 <rogerm> SteveS: maybe offer a reference server
15:39:10 <rogerm> topic: Use Cases & Requirements document
15:43:09 <rogerm> stevebattle: should security aspect be included in UC&R ?
15:43:10 <SteveS> Should we keep this section is the question: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Use_Cases_And_Requirements#LDP_and_Authentication.2FAuthorization
15:44:00 <SteveS> PROPOSAL: Move this to Access Control requirements wiki
15:44:04 <rogerm> regarding UC&R, I will update the IaaS story
15:44:43 <SteveS> s/requirements wiki/requirements wiki page/
15:44:44 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Move 1.4.11 to the access control UC&R doc
15:45:38 <rogerm> Arnaud: who added the "data sharing" story ?
15:46:22 <rogerm> ... the default is to remove this story, unless someone claims ownership
15:47:01 <SteveS> believe that Christophe Gueret  owns the "data sharing" story
<rogerm> Arnaud: suggest the editors contact Christophe directly and inform him that we will drop his use case unless he provides some clarification
<rogerm> stevebattle: ok, will do
15:47:27 <jmvanel> jmvanel has joined #ldp
15:48:39 <Arnaud> q?
15:48:54 <rogerm> Arnaud: By next week (Dec 10th), the UC&R will be in good shape for review
15:49:05 <stevebattle> OK
15:52:24 <rogerm> topic: Specification
<rogerm> steves: working on it, have been busy with the UC&R, plan to make some proposal on the open issues
15:52:32 <rogerm> topic: Open issues
15:52:32 <rogerm> subtopic: Issue-37
15:53:24 <rogerm> steves: dret was going to create a wiki and draft some text about the model
15:53:24 <rogerm> ... I haven't seen it yet, will follow up with him
15:54:21 <stevebattle> q+
15:54:40 <rogerm> Arnaud: what is the outstanding issue which has the largest potential impact on the spec ?
<rogerm> steves: not sure there is really one
<rogerm> Arnaud: I think issue-37
15:54:42 <stevebattle> q-
15:54:48 <Zakim> -??P52
15:55:00 <stevebattle> I concur - the aggregation/composition issues are critical
15:55:02 <BartvanLeeuwen> q+
15:55:11 <Zakim> +??P40
15:55:16 <Arnaud> ack bart
15:56:06 <rogerm> Bart: do/can resources have a link *back* to the container they are in ?
#15:56:11 <stevebattle> Nobody knows...
#15:56:22 <rogerm> (who asked that question please ?)
#15:56:40 <stevebattle> That was Bart
15:56:42 <rogerm> the current spec does not mandate this
15:56:47 <rogerm> thanks
#15:57:04 <rogerm> Bart: do/can resources have a link *back* to the container they are in ?
<rogerm> Arnaud: current spec does not mandate this
<rogerm> steves: application may choose to have them
15:57:25 <MacTed> no mandate, +1.  option to do so, +1.
<rogerm> steves: believe Issue-21 is about that, although it's against the UC&R
15:57:36 <rogerm> subtopic: Issue-21
15:57:45 <MacTed> big difference between "must have" and "can have"...
15:58:53 <Arnaud> q?
15:58:58 <stevebattle> I raised it against UC&R because it stemmed from there.
15:59:12 <stevebattle> It is *really* an issue on the spec.
15:59:24 <rogerm> SteveS: what is the motivating use-case for the link-back requirement ?
<rogerm> bart: ok, will look into it
15:59:49 <MacTed> Zakim, unmute me
15:59:49 <Zakim> MacTed should no longer be muted
15:59:54 <Zakim> -Ashok_Malhotra
16:00:12 <krp> zakim, ??P40 is me
16:00:12 <Zakim> +krp; got it
16:00:13 <MacTed> think about chapters in a book...
16:00:24 <MacTed> pictures in an album...
16:01:16 <rogerm> Arnaud: need people to propose solutions to the issues which have been raised ... !
<rogerm> ... default will be to close issues accepting that they are not addressed by the spec
<rogerm> ... if anyone cares about an issue they should make a proposal on how to resolve it
16:01:43 <Arnaud> q?
16:01:46 <rogerm> q+
16:02:32 <Arnaud> ack rogerm
<rogerm> rogerm: interested in issue-37
<rogerm> Arnaud: thanks, but we already have dret and steves working on it
<rogerm> rogerm: think once we solve issue-37 the rest will be easier
16:02:56 <stevebattle> I would send your ideas to Erik, Roger.
16:03:14 <Zakim> -MacTed
16:03:20 <stevebattle> Bye
16:03:22 <Zakim> -Sandro
16:03:22 <Arnaud> MEETING ADJOURNED
16:03:23 <BartvanLeeuwen> bye
16:03:23 <Zakim> -SteveS
16:03:23 <Zakim> -rogerm
16:03:29 <Zakim> -AndyS
16:03:37 <AndyS> AndyS has left #ldp
16:03:38 <Zakim> -Arnaud
16:03:39 <Zakim> -Ruben
16:03:48 <Zakim> -krp
16:03:50 <Zakim> -BartvanLeeuwen
# SPECIAL MARKER FOR CHATSYNC.  DO NOT EDIT THIS LINE OR BELOW.  SRCLINESUSED=00000195