From Linked Data Platform
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