From Linked Data Platform
Please justify/explain all edits to this page, in your "edit summary" text.
14:57:48 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #ldp 14:57:48 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/01/28-ldp-irc 14:57:50 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public 14:57:50 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #ldp 14:57:52 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be LDP 14:57:52 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_LDP()10:00AM scheduled to start in 3 minutes 14:57:53 <trackbot> Meeting: Linked Data Platform (LDP) Working Group Teleconference 14:57:53 <trackbot> Date: 28 January 2013 14:58:20 <bblfish> bblfish has joined #ldp 14:58:22 <Zakim> SW_LDP()10:00AM has now started 14:58:29 <Zakim> +Arnaud 14:58:40 <SteveS> SteveS has joined #ldp 14:58:58 <Zakim> +??P7 14:59:02 <BartvanLeeuwen> Zakim, ??P7 is me 14:59:02 <Zakim> +BartvanLeeuwen; got it 14:59:09 <antonis> antonis has joined #ldp 14:59:40 <Zakim> +??P8 15:00:19 <Ashok> Ashok has joined #ldp 15:00:25 <SteveBattle_> SteveBattle_ has joined #ldp 15:00:34 <Ashok> zakim, code? 15:00:34 <Zakim> the conference code is 53794 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:email@example.com), Ashok 15:00:42 <Zakim> +[IPcaller] 15:00:44 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.a] 15:00:46 <ericP> Zakim, please dial ericP-office 15:00:46 <Zakim> ok, ericP; the call is being made 15:00:47 <Zakim> +EricP 15:00:51 <antonis> zakim, ??p8 is me 15:00:51 <Zakim> +antonis; got it 15:00:59 <dret> zakim, +[IPcaller] is me 15:00:59 <Zakim> sorry, dret, I do not recognize a party named '+[IPcaller]' 15:01:00 <Zakim> +??P0 15:01:09 <Zakim> +Ashok_Malhotra 15:01:10 <JohnArwe> JohnArwe has joined #ldp 15:01:12 <dret> zakim, +[IPcaller.a] is me 15:01:12 <Zakim> sorry, dret, I do not recognize a party named '+[IPcaller.a]' 15:01:17 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software 15:01:19 <sergio> Zakim: [IPcaller.a] is me 15:01:30 <dret> zakim, [IPcaller] is me 15:01:30 <Zakim> +dret; got it 15:01:31 <TallTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me 15:01:31 <Zakim> +TallTed; got it 15:01:33 <TallTed> Zakim, mute me 15:01:33 <Zakim> TallTed should now be muted 15:01:37 <sergio> Zakim: IPcaller.a is me 15:01:57 <Zakim> +JohnArwe 15:02:05 <rogerm> rogerm has joined #ldp 15:02:15 <Zakim> +roger 15:02:18 <JohnArwe> very quiet on the line 15:02:23 <Zakim> +Steve_Speicher 15:02:26 <Zakim> + +44.754.550.aaaa 15:02:41 <SteveBattle_> zakim, aaaa is me 15:02:41 <Zakim> +SteveBattle_; got it 15:02:46 <SteveS> zakim, Steve_Speicher is me 15:02:46 <Zakim> +SteveS; got it 15:02:54 <dret> very quiet, but it seems to work ok. 15:02:56 <Zakim> +[IPcaller] 15:03:04 <krp> krp has joined #ldp 15:03:05 <AndyS> zakim, IPcaller is me 15:03:05 <Zakim> +AndyS; got it 15:03:19 <Zakim> +bblfish 15:03:23 <Zakim> -??P0 15:03:32 <bblfish> hi 15:03:39 <Arnaud> zakim, who's here? 15:03:39 <Zakim> On the phone I see Arnaud, BartvanLeeuwen, antonis, dret, [IPcaller.a], EricP, Ashok_Malhotra, TallTed (muted), JohnArwe, roger, SteveS, SteveBattle_, AndyS, bblfish 15:03:40 <pchampin> pchampin has joined #ldp 15:03:42 <Zakim> On IRC I see krp, rogerm, JohnArwe, SteveBattle_, Ashok, antonis, SteveS, bblfish, Zakim, RRSAgent, nmihindu, sergio, Arnaud, BartvanLeeuwen, dret, AndyS, TallTed, bhyland, 15:03:42 <Zakim> ... oberger, jmvanel, stevebattle, deiu, trackbot, betehess, Yves, sandro 15:03:57 <sergio> Zakim, [IPcaller.a] is me 15:03:57 <Zakim> +sergio; got it 15:03:59 <Zakim> +??P3 15:04:14 <dret> zakim, who's here? 15:04:14 <Zakim> On the phone I see Arnaud, BartvanLeeuwen, antonis, dret, sergio, EricP, Ashok_Malhotra, TallTed (muted), JohnArwe, roger, SteveS, SteveBattle_, AndyS, bblfish, ??P3 15:04:17 <Zakim> On IRC I see pchampin, krp, rogerm, JohnArwe, SteveBattle_, Ashok, antonis, SteveS, bblfish, Zakim, RRSAgent, nmihindu, sergio, Arnaud, BartvanLeeuwen, dret, AndyS, TallTed, 15:04:17 <Zakim> ... bhyland, oberger, jmvanel, stevebattle, deiu, trackbot, betehess, Yves 15:04:31 <Arnaud> zakim, pick a victim 15:04:31 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose Arnaud 15:04:40 <SteveS> +1 15:04:42 <Arnaud> zakim, pick a victim 15:04:42 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose ??P3 15:04:44 <BartvanLeeuwen> +1 15:04:55 <bblfish> who laughed? 15:04:59 <bblfish> pick him!! 15:05:11 <Zakim> -??P3 15:05:32 <Zakim> +??P26 15:05:35 <dret> zakim, who's here? 15:05:35 <Zakim> On the phone I see Arnaud, BartvanLeeuwen, antonis, dret, sergio, EricP, Ashok_Malhotra, TallTed (muted), JohnArwe, roger, SteveS, SteveBattle_, AndyS, bblfish, ??P26 15:05:39 <Zakim> On IRC I see pchampin, krp, rogerm, JohnArwe, SteveBattle_, Ashok, antonis, SteveS, bblfish, Zakim, RRSAgent, nmihindu, sergio, Arnaud, BartvanLeeuwen, dret, AndyS, TallTed, 15:05:39 <Zakim> ... bhyland, oberger, jmvanel, stevebattle, deiu, trackbot, betehess, Yves 15:05:50 <Arnaud> zakim, pick a victim 15:05:51 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose ??P26 15:06:11 <Kalpa> Kalpa has joined #ldp 15:06:13 <JohnArwe> chair: arnaud 15:06:14 <TallTed> chair: Arnaud 15:07:16 <Zakim> +??P5 15:07:45 <SteveS> looked and didn't see any problem <dret> Topic: Minutes of January 21 15:07:58 <dret> proposed to accept last week's meeting: no objection <dret> RESOLVED: minutes of January 21 approved. 15:08:01 <krp> zakim, ??P5 is me 15:08:02 <Zakim> +krp; got it <dret> Topic: Actions and Issues <dret> subtopic: Actions 15:08:21 <bblfish> You can now close my action from last week 15:08:26 <dret> please everybody indicate f2f attendance until next mondat 15:08:40 <nmihindu> zakim, ??P26 is me 15:08:40 <Zakim> +nmihindu; got it 15:09:03 <dret> close ACTION-28 15:09:03 <trackbot> Closed ACTION-28 Access Control: fill in use cases and requirements and Identity section. 15:09:05 <bblfish> action-28? 15:09:05 <trackbot> ACTION-28 -- Henry Story to access Control: fill in use cases and requirements and Identity section -- due 2012-11-21 -- CLOSED 15:09:05 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/actions/28 15:09:34 <sergio> action-36? 15:09:34 <trackbot> ACTION-36 -- John Arwe to [EDITOR] Make changes for ISSUE-42 (moving common props to deployment guide) -- due 2013-01-14 -- OPEN 15:09:34 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/actions/36 15:09:49 <dret> discussing ACTION-36, which is 97% complete 15:10:06 <Zakim> +??P9 15:10:19 <Zakim> +Yves 15:11:12 <dret> ACTION-36, content has been moved to deployment guide, but some clean-up is required <dret> subtopic: Raised issues 15:12:23 <dret> ISSUE-46 has been raised, rogerm explains the motivation 15:12:49 <TallTed> issue-46? 15:12:49 <trackbot> ISSUE-46 -- services and LDP -- raised 15:12:49 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/46 15:12:54 <pchampin_> pchampin_ has joined #ldp 15:13:49 <dret> rogerm explains how ISSUE-46 could be closed, which is not quite clear from the issue itself 15:14:15 <dret> Arnaud claims that it's not quite clear what the issue is asking us to do? 15:15:08 <bblfish> q? 15:15:09 <bblfish> q+ 15:15:18 <Arnaud> ack bblfish 15:15:28 <SteveBattle_> q+ 15:15:41 <JohnArwe> q+ 15:16:02 <dret> "category 1" as described by Arnaud refers to interacting with collections and entries, not about a generic RDF database model of "just managing triples" 15:16:11 <Arnaud> ack steveb 15:16:38 <dret> SteveBattle says that both scenarios are covered 15:16:40 <Arnaud> ack john 15:16:44 <svillata> svillata has joined #ldp 15:17:32 <bblfish> Issue-37? 15:17:32 <trackbot> ISSUE-37 -- What is the LDP data model and the LDP interaction model? -- open 15:17:32 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/37 15:17:45 <dret> JohnArwe says we have different audiences, one starting from the bottom, the other starting top-down, and ISSUE-46 is very much related to ISSUE-37 15:18:22 <dret> we as a WG are not delivering solutions, we are delivering building blocks for solutions 15:18:26 <Zakim> +??P30 15:18:48 <svillata> zakim, P30 is me 15:18:48 <Zakim> sorry, svillata, I do not recognize a party named 'P30' 15:18:58 <svillata> zakim, ??P30 is me 15:18:58 <Zakim> +svillata; got it 15:20:00 <bblfish> bblfish: said that there is a relation to this problem and the use cases document, it is an interesting issue, but not sure if it should be opened. There is definitetly something that should be done as a group to try to solve this. My guess is that one can do this very declaratively, and that there is some new things to do. 15:21:10 <SteveS> I think it is covered by our use case document already 15:22:38 <dret> it seems to very unclear what category 1 and 2 even mean, different people have different opinions on what they mean 15:23:14 <bblfish> makes sense 15:24:09 <SteveBattle_> It would always be possible to make this more explicit in the next iteration of UC&R - we did invite comments four this iteration but we had none :) 15:24:16 <dret> rogerm is asked by Arnaud to refer to UCR and see whether ISSUE-46 can be reframed in terms of missing UCR issues; ISSUE-46 remains raised for now 15:25:06 <dret> rogerm claims that category 2 will be addressed by at least some of the WG members <dret>topic: UC&R 15:25:36 <dret> Arnaud asks what's the current status of UCR? <dret>... request wasn't actually known from the webmaster <dret>Yves working on getting it published, hopefully by Thursday 15:26:47 <dret> we need to find out what went wrong with the publication process so that we can avoid it doing it again 15:27:17 <TallTed> TallTed has joined #ldp 15:27:35 <dret> email address in the WD needs to be changed to be the public email address (not the -wg only) <dret>topic: LDP spec 15:28:58 <dret> Arnaud: our charter asks us to publish a second WD this month (january). should we do this or wait for more substantial changes? 15:29:28 <dret> SteveS would prefer delay of about a month, so that changes related to ISSUE-34 and ISSUE-37 can be included 15:30:15 <dret> JohnArwe asks about exclusion period (somebody maybe should check); Yves isn't sure that something has been announced yet 15:30:57 <bblfish> Should we not have the relative URL changes? 15:31:01 <dret> maybe putting out a WD right before or after the f2f2 would be hit by a publishing moratorium 15:31:09 <Yves> next publication moratorium is 7-17 June 2013 <dret>topic: Open Issues 15:32:01 <bblfish> Issue-37 15:32:01 <trackbot> ISSUE-37 -- What is the LDP data model and the LDP interaction model? -- open 15:32:01 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/37 15:32:18 <dret> ISSUE-37 was an attempt to clearly write down the assumptions that people have about the (often implicit) model of LDP 15:32:31 <bblfish> q? 15:32:33 <bblfish> q+ 15:33:07 <dret> so far there is little convergence, the wiki page is mostly the AtomPub model, the ISSUE-37 approach so far does not seem to be working very well 15:33:41 <Ashok> + 15:33:47 <Ashok> q+ 15:34:00 <dret> if we cannot conclude ISSUE-37 to actually come to (some) description of the model, we probably should focus more on the individual issues, than on the very general ISSUE-37 issue 15:35:14 <bblfish> Issue-34? 15:35:14 <trackbot> ISSUE-34 -- Adding and removing arcs in weak aggregation -- open 15:35:14 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/34 15:35:25 <krp> krp has joined #ldp 15:35:31 <dret> Arnaud proposes to give us a week for making progress on ISSUE-37 and ISSUE-34, but we need to keep an eye on the timeline and solving specific issues around LDP 15:36:05 <Arnaud> ack bblfish 15:36:07 <svillata> q? 15:36:33 <dret> bblfish is impossible to understand... 15:36:33 <TallTed> bblfish, please move closer to wifi base... or type 15:36:35 <Zakim> -bblfish 15:36:39 <JohnArwe> "in the large hall" sound 15:36:49 <Arnaud> ack ashok 15:37:01 <bblfish> willl take time to reconnect 15:37:02 <bblfish> just contine 15:37:06 <bblfish> continue 15:37:17 <TallTed> q+ 15:37:20 <TallTed> Zakim, unmute me 15:37:20 <Zakim> TallTed should no longer be muted 15:37:33 <dret> Ashok says we'll keep coming back to ISSUE-37 questions, even if we start focusing on more specific issues 15:37:48 <ericP> q? 15:38:03 <Zakim> +bblfish 15:38:06 <dret> Ashok gives example of "container with container" issue, which is a question of the overall model 15:38:11 <bblfish> q? 15:38:28 <Zakim> +??P31 15:38:35 <bblfish> q+ 15:38:39 <krp> zakim, ??P31 is me 15:38:39 <Zakim> +krp; got it 15:38:52 <dret> Arnaud says defining the model "piecemeal" may not be ideal, but maybe more manageable 15:39:13 <Arnaud> ack tallted 15:39:23 <dret> Ashok says we might just want to discuss the open questions on the ISSUE-37 wiki page 15:40:29 <dret> TallTed says we should focus on the important issues, but they may be too big to just close them. just discussing them might be not very productive. 15:41:20 <dret> what makes LDP different from what is out there? 15:41:22 <Arnaud> ack bblfish 15:42:06 <dret> bblfish says that Atom rejected a model 15:42:13 <dret> q+ 15:42:23 <Arnaud> ack dret 15:42:26 <TallTed> Zakim, mute me 15:42:27 <Zakim> TallTed should now be muted 15:42:50 <bblfish> q+ 15:43:13 <Zakim> -antonis 15:43:34 <TallTed> Zakim, who's noisy? 15:43:45 <Zakim> TallTed, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Ashok_Malhotra (29%), bblfish (38%) 15:43:59 <bblfish> I muted myself 15:44:13 <Zakim> +??P8 15:44:19 <Arnaud> ack bblfish 15:44:28 <antonis> zakim, ??p8 is me 15:44:28 <Zakim> +antonis; got it 15:44:35 <dret> -q 15:44:41 <bblfish> I am thinking I was still found the work on the ontology last week was very useful. For example I now agree with Arnaud that LDPC are sublcass LDPR 15:44:42 <TallTed> bblfish - sometimes Zakim's mute is necessary (e.g., line noise isn't cleared by muting handset) 15:45:28 <dret> bblfish says that defining ontologies are very useful exercises when it comes to understanding the issues 15:45:48 <dret> zakim, who is making noise? 15:45:59 <Zakim> dret, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Arnaud (29%), dret (5%), bblfish (53%) 15:46:17 <dret> bblfish sounds like being in a giant hall with revolving doors 15:46:22 <TallTed> why are "defining the LDP spec" and "defining an ontology for LDP" orthogonal? 15:46:27 <bblfish> It's linked data arnaud 15:46:32 <TallTed> they seem unbreakably interlinked 15:46:36 <bblfish> you have to publsih the ldp:Container 15:46:37 <SteveS> q+ 15:46:42 <bblfish> and ldp:Resource 15:46:44 <Arnaud> ack steves 15:47:31 <bblfish> No just define the datamodel 15:47:31 <dret> Yves says there should be a definition for what we can exchange in the protocol. 15:47:54 <bblfish> but the problem is that when you discuss the system, you need to work out what it is that you are speaking about 15:47:55 <SteveS> q+ 15:48:13 <Arnaud> s/Yves/SteveS/ 15:49:15 <Arnaud> ack steves 15:49:50 <dret> SteveS says that the ISSUE-34 proposal separates the interaction model from the (deeper) data model 15:50:05 <bblfish> Issue-37? 15:50:05 <trackbot> ISSUE-37 -- What is the LDP data model and the LDP interaction model? -- open 15:50:05 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/37 15:50:53 <dret> ISSUE-37 has a wiki page, which seems to be largely unused (apart from Ashok's still open questions, and SteveS's additions to the page) 15:51:14 <dret> Ashok proposes to bring up other questions for discussions 15:51:15 <JohnArwe> Henry, you said that your understanding of some things has changed based on the discussion, e.g. on the sub-classing. Have you shared those new understandings on the list? I confess I'm not caught up on the generous helping of emails yet. 15:52:52 <bblfish> q+ 15:53:19 <ericP> q+ to discuss resolving with tests a la http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Testing#manifest_test_description.2C_EARL_results_submission 15:53:50 <bblfish> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/ISSUE-37 15:53:51 <SteveS> q+ 15:54:08 <Arnaud> ack bblfish 15:54:10 <dret> bblfish maybe unmute? 15:54:25 <dret> bblfish you're really hard to understand... 15:54:28 <TallTed> totally breaking up bblfish 15:54:41 <bblfish> ok, next week 15:54:52 <Arnaud> ack ericp 15:54:52 <Zakim> ericP, you wanted to discuss resolving with tests a la http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Testing#manifest_test_description.2C_EARL_results_submission 15:55:41 <bblfish> JohnArwe: I for example started understanding why it makes sense that an LDPC is a sublcass of an LDPR 15:55:50 <dret> ericP proposes to start from tests, starting from starting state, interactions, and a resulting state 15:56:25 <bblfish> JohnArwe: also one can come up with a good argument on what POSTs as appends on LDPRs that are not LDPCs 15:56:59 <bblfish> agree, test cases are good 15:57:03 <JohnArwe> thx Henry. 15:57:06 <BartvanLeeuwen> +1 15:57:12 <dret> Arnaud proposes that focusing on tests might be a practical way to make progress 15:57:14 <Arnaud> ack steves 15:57:22 <Zakim> -bblfish 15:57:38 <JohnArwe> I'll note that this "initial state, message, resulting state" approach is exactly what I used in the newest issue-34 proposal. 15:58:30 <dret> SteveS ISSUE-37 may best be addressed by summarizing the current model as spec text, and then work on specific issues 15:58:38 <JohnArwe> ...it does not use this very compact notation, rather it shows the http messages 15:59:08 <ericP> JohnArwe, maybe we can assist that issue-34 proposal with concrete examples 15:59:13 <dret> Arnaud asks Ashok to check his questions on the ISSUE-37 wiki page and see whether any of the questions are not open as separate issues; if so, please raise them 15:59:18 <ericP> might help folks see how they'd contribute 15:59:40 <dret> Arnaud proposes to put ISSUE-37 aside and focus on smaller issues 16:00:55 <dret> JohnArwe talks about the ISSUE-34 wiki page and how it's describing the issue 16:01:36 <JohnArwe> this newest proposal is at http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Issue-34:_Back_to_Basics 16:02:00 <JohnArwe> which hangs off the aggregator page for all 34 proposals http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/ISSUE-34 16:02:17 <dret> sorry everybody, i must leave for my next call; could somebody continue scribing and then generate the minutes? thanks, bye! 16:02:29 <Zakim> -dret 16:02:42 <ericP> Arnaud: next week will choose an approach 16:02:46 <Zakim> -Ashok_Malhotra 16:02:51 <Zakim> -sergio 16:02:58 <Zakim> -SteveS 16:02:59 <SteveBattle_> bye 16:03:03 <JohnArwe> Arnaud: please review proposals on issue-34 for next week, we will attempt to choose one on next week's call 16:03:05 <sergio> I have to leave, bye 16:03:05 <Zakim> -antonis 16:03:07 <Zakim> -Yves 16:03:08 <Zakim> -SteveBattle_ 16:03:09 <Zakim> -svillata #16:03:24 <Zakim> -krp.a 16:03:33 <Zakim> -??P9 16:03:36 <Kalpa> Kalpa has left #ldp 16:03:56 <rogerm> I'm still here as well ....... 16:05:06 <JohnArwe> roger did you hear the discussion about deciding next week on 34? so your pages would need to be done. 16:06:03 <rogerm> i did !!! :) 16:06:07 <Zakim> -AndyS 16:07:04 <dret> Arnaud, can you generate the minutes? or is there some incantation i need to type? 16:08:18 <rogerm> John, looking at your issue 34 proposal: I was kind of expecting some by-reference semantics, particularly inside the "Creating a member resource" section. This is needed for the "add an arc" requirement of the original 34, in my opinion. Is there an error here, or an error in my understanding ? 16:08:25 <JohnArwe> he should be able to do minutes dret; I did not have to do anything after last week's call 16:08:30 <bblfish> bblfish has joined #ldp 16:08:47 <Arnaud> dret: you don't need to do anything 16:09:11 <Arnaud> there is a procedure to turn the irc log into the actual minutes but I can take care of it 16:09:48 <dret> ok, thanks everybody, then! 16:12:14 <JohnArwe> Let's say Roger that crafting it raised the question in my mind of how it should work, but I see that as separable-from 34 and there fore "should be separated". I do have some immature ideas but literally no one has heard them and until I write them down myself I consider them the rabid ravings of a sleep-deprived Monty Python fan. 16:12:47 <JohnArwe> ...34 is tangled enough that I was trying to avoid scope creep by the end. 16:14:03 <JohnArwe> ...if the idea-kernel in my head pans out, it's remarkably free/easy and completely consistent with what's here, as strange as that sounds (the strangeness being Yet Another Reason I treat it as ravings) 16:15:52 <JohnArwe> ...I *do* think we need to be able to "add" "listings" of "existing resources" to a "collection", ala bug tracker. Seems to me that even the most basic use cases "of interest" require that. 16:16:21 <rogerm> That's the name of issue-34 though ... :) i.e. "adding and removing arcs" ... 16:17:34 <rogerm> yes. I agree. And furthermore, *ALL* predicates coming out of a resource could be used in that ... (?) 16:17:41 <JohnArwe> ...34 is aggregation, as people have been discussing it. For some values of those words, people could reasonably argue that containers do them. 16:18:32 <Zakim> -BartvanLeeuwen 16:20:32 <rogerm> issue-34 is "add an arc" ..... guess we should check with Richard 16:21:59 <Zakim> -EricP 16:22:01 <Zakim> -Arnaud 16:22:05 <Zakim> -nmihindu 16:22:06 <Zakim> -JohnArwe 16:22:06 <Zakim> -TallTed # SPECIAL MARKER FOR CHATSYNC. DO NOT EDIT THIS LINE OR BELOW. SRCLINESUSED=00000327