Chatlog 2013-02-04

See original RRSAgent log or preview nicely formatted version.

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

14:57:51 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #ldp
14:57:51 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/02/04-ldp-irc
14:57:53 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
14:57:53 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #ldp
14:57:55 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be LDP
14:57:55 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_LDP()10:00AM scheduled to start in 3 minutes
14:57:56 <trackbot> Meeting: Linked Data Platform (LDP) Working Group Teleconference
14:57:56 <trackbot> Date: 04 February 2013
14:58:09 <Arnaud> chair: Arnaud
14:59:07 <cygri> cygri has joined #ldp
14:59:29 <Zakim> SW_LDP()10:00AM has now started
14:59:34 <Ashok> Ashok has joined #ldp
14:59:35 <Zakim> +cygri
14:59:49 <Zakim> +??P14
14:59:55 <cygri> zakim, who is on the phone?
14:59:55 <Zakim> On the phone I see cygri, ??P14
15:00:01 <AndyS> zakim, ??P14 is me
15:00:01 <Zakim> +AndyS; got it
15:00:02 <rgarcia> rgarcia has joined #ldp
15:00:02 <Zakim> +SteveBattle
15:00:06 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
15:00:10 <BartvanLeeuwen> BartvanLeeuwen has joined #ldp
15:00:16 <Zakim> +??P18
15:00:21 <Ashok> zakim, code?
15:00:21 <Zakim> the conference code is 53794 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), Ashok
15:00:54 <Zakim> +Arnaud
15:00:56 <Zakim> -[IPcaller]
15:00:56 <Zakim> +??P22
15:01:09 <nmihindu> nmihindu has joined #ldp
15:01:09 <Zakim> +??P24
15:01:18 <bblfish> hi
15:01:24 <rgarcia> zakim, ??P22 is me
15:01:24 <Zakim> +rgarcia; got it
15:01:27 <Kalpa> Kalpa has joined #ldp
15:01:30 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
15:01:34 <cygri> zakim, kalpa is with me
15:01:34 <Zakim> +kalpa; got it
15:01:35 <Zakim> +??P27
15:01:42 <Zakim> +[IBM]
15:01:43 <BartvanLeeuwen> Zakim, ??p27 is me
15:01:43 <Zakim> +BartvanLeeuwen; got it
15:01:46 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software
15:01:47 <sergio> Zakim: [IPcaller]  is me
15:01:47 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.a]
15:01:48 <dret> dret has joined #LDP
15:01:55 <SteveS> Zakim, [IBM] is me
15:01:55 <Zakim> +SteveS; got it
15:02:02 <TallTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
15:02:04 <Zakim> +TallTed; got it
15:02:05 <TallTed> Zakim, mute me
15:02:05 <Zakim> TallTed should now be muted
15:02:26 <Zakim> +??P28
15:02:28 <sergio> Zakim: [IPcaller] is me
15:02:32 <Zakim> +bblfish
15:02:45 <bblfish> hi
15:02:54 <Arnaud> zakim, who's here?
15:02:54 <Zakim> On the phone I see cygri, AndyS, SteveBattle, ??P18, Arnaud, rgarcia, ??P24, [IPcaller], BartvanLeeuwen, SteveS, TallTed (muted), [IPcaller.a], ??P28, bblfish
15:02:57 <roger> roger has joined #ldp
15:02:57 <Dave> Dave has joined #ldp
15:02:58 <Zakim> cygri has cygri, kalpa
15:02:58 <Zakim> On IRC I see dret, Kalpa, nmihindu, BartvanLeeuwen, rgarcia, Ashok, cygri, Zakim, RRSAgent, sergio, TallTed, AndyS, betehess, SteveS, Arnaud, stevebattle, jmvanel, bblfish,
15:02:58 <Zakim> ... trackbot, Yves, sandro, ericP
15:03:05 <dret> zakim, +??P28 is me
15:03:05 <Zakim> sorry, dret, I do not recognize a party named '+??P28'
15:03:08 <Zakim> +Sandro
15:03:11 <dret> zakim, ??P28 is me
15:03:12 <Zakim> +dret; got it
15:03:16 <sergio> Zakim: [IPcaller] is me
15:03:21 <bblfish> Do you all remember when Arnaud used to to be worried there was not enough conversation going on the mailing list?
15:03:24 <Ashok> zakim, ??18 is me
15:03:24 <Zakim> sorry, Ashok, I do not recognize a party named '??18'
15:03:31 <Zakim> +Yves
15:03:34 <TallTed> Zakim, who's here?
15:03:35 <Zakim> On the phone I see cygri, AndyS, SteveBattle, ??P18, Arnaud, rgarcia, ??P24, [IPcaller], BartvanLeeuwen, SteveS, TallTed (muted), [IPcaller.a], dret, bblfish, Sandro, Yves
15:03:37 <Zakim> cygri has cygri, kalpa
15:03:37 <Zakim> On IRC I see Dave, roger, dret, Kalpa, nmihindu, BartvanLeeuwen, rgarcia, Ashok, cygri, Zakim, RRSAgent, sergio, TallTed, AndyS, betehess, SteveS, Arnaud,
15:03:37 <Zakim> ... stevebattle, jmvanel, bblfish, trackbot, Yves, sandro, ericP
15:03:56 <Ashok> zakim, ??P18 is me
15:03:57 <Zakim> +Ashok; got it
15:04:05 <Zakim> +roger
15:04:09 <bblfish> mute bblfish
15:04:15 <sergio> Zakim: [IPcaller] is me
15:04:19 <bblfish> zakim, mute bblfish
15:04:20 <Zakim> bblfish should now be muted
15:04:26 <JohnArwe> JohnArwe has joined #ldp
15:04:51 <Zakim> +JohnArwe
15:05:19 <Zakim> +??P8
15:05:25 <bblfish> zakim, unmute bblfish
15:05:25 <Zakim> bblfish should no longer be muted
15:05:32 <Zakim> -[IPcaller]
15:05:44 <dret> i can do it for 30min before yves takes over...
15:05:59 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
15:06:11 <sergio> Zakim: [IPcaller] is me
15:06:13 <bblfish> q?
15:06:27 <bblfish> Ok, I can do it
15:06:46 <Arnaud> srcibe: dret
15:06:55 <cygri> s/srcibe/scribe/
15:07:08 <cygri> chair: Arnaud
15:07:13 <Ashok> scribenick: dret
15:07:18 <cygri> agenda: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2013.02.04
15:07:38 <sergio> Zakim: [IPcaller] is sergio
<dret> topic: Adminstrative Stuff
<Arnaud> Proposed: approve minutes of January 28
15:07:49 <BartvanLeeuwen> +1
15:07:50 <sergio> +1
15:07:56 <nmihindu> zakim, ??P8 is me
15:07:56 <Zakim> +nmihindu; got it
15:07:56 <cygri> zakim, [IPcaller] is sergio
15:07:57 <Zakim> +sergio; got it
#15:08:04 <sergio> thx cygri
15:08:16 <dret> resolved: minutes of January 28 are approved (no objections)
15:08:38 <bblfish> what is the URL for the registration?
15:08:39 <dret> next meeting next week, please register for f2f2
15:08:46 <dret> topic: Actions
15:08:55 <cygri> dret, http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/F2F2
15:08:56 <dret> there are no actions pending review
15:09:05 <bblfish> thanks
15:09:22 <dret> thanks, cygri
#15:09:44 <Yves> http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/WD-ldp-ucr-20130131/
15:10:34 <dret> Yves: LDP UCR FPWD was published (but there wasn't an open action)
15:10:42 <dret> topic: Issues
<dret> No issues pending review
<dret> subtopic: Raised Issues
15:11:24 <dret> ISSUE-46 raised by roger should result in a wiki page
15:11:39 <cygri> ISSUE-46?
15:11:39 <trackbot> ISSUE-46 -- services and LDP -- raised
15:11:39 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/46
15:11:41 <stevebattle> q+
15:11:46 <bblfish> q?
15:12:09 <svillata> svillata has joined #ldp
15:12:35 <dret> maybe ISSUE-46 should be closed and a wiki page created as a "wish list"? roger agrees, stevebattle assists with making sure things get into UCR
15:12:42 <JohnArwe> if issue-46 is handled via wiki page or any other on-line resource, let's link 46 to that target site
15:12:48 <dret> resolved: close ISSUE-46
15:12:48 <trackbot> Closed ISSUE-46 services and LDP.
15:12:52 <bblfish> q+
15:12:55 <stevebattle> q-
15:13:11 <Zakim> +??P0
15:13:20 <bblfish> ISSUE-47
15:13:20 <trackbot> ISSUE-47 -- publish ontology -- raised
15:13:20 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/47
15:13:46 <svillata> Zakim, ??P0 is me
15:13:46 <Zakim> +svillata; got it
15:13:55 <Arnaud> proposed: open issue-47
15:13:56 <JohnArwe> +1
15:13:57 <stevebattle> +1
15:13:59 <sergio> +1
15:14:00 <rgarcia> +1
15:14:00 <bblfish> +1
15:14:01 <SteveS> +1
15:14:02 <svillata> +1
15:14:12 <cygri> +1
15:14:12 <nmihindu> +1
15:14:14 <AndyS> +1
15:14:14 <roger> +1
15:14:21 <BartvanLeeuwen> +1
15:14:31 <dret> open ISSUE-47 ; bblfish will become the "editor" of the ontology
15:14:46 <Arnaud> resolved: open issue-47
15:14:57 <stevebattle> The minimal ontology on the issue page looks good though
15:14:57 <dret> ISSUE-48
15:14:57 <trackbot> ISSUE-48 -- Profile mechanism is Needed -- raised
15:14:57 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/48
15:15:27 <bblfish> q+
15:15:40 <Arnaud> Proposal: close issue-48 as out of scope for this WG
15:16:29 <AndyS> agree - does not need spec'ing - server can enforce anyway.
15:16:30 <SteveS> +1
15:16:33 <stevebattle> +1
15:16:36 <BartvanLeeuwen> +1
15:16:40 <svillata> +1
15:16:40 <bblfish> +1
15:16:41 <rgarcia> +1
15:16:41 <sergio> +1
15:16:45 <SteveS> need use cases from owner
15:16:55 <dret> close ISSUE-48
15:16:55 <trackbot> Closed ISSUE-48 Profile mechanism is Needed.
15:16:58 <sergio> could come later
15:16:59 <nmihindu> +1
15:17:00 <roger> +1
15:17:05 <Arnaud> resolved: close issue-48
15:17:38 <stevebattle> Thanks for getting that published Yves.
15:17:54 <dret> UCR have been published, thanks everybody for making this happen
15:18:00 <bblfish> http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/WD-ldp-ucr-20130131/
15:18:02 <AndyS> http://www.w3.org/TR/ldp-ucr/
15:18:12 <dret> topic: UCR
<dret> LDP UCR FPWD was published
<dret> http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/WD-ldp-ucr-20130131/
15:18:18 <dret> topic: LDP spec
<dret> steves: nothing to report
15:18:23 <stevebattle> The link to the published UC&R is broken on the wiki
15:18:34 <stevebattle> It returns 404
15:18:51 <dret> stevebattle, it's a wiki ;-)
15:18:58 <stevebattle> :)
15:18:34 <dret> topic: Open Issues
15:19:17 <dret> subtopic: ISSUE-9
15:19:17 <trackbot> ISSUE-9 -- Should properties used in BPR representations be BPRs? -- open
15:19:17 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/9
15:19:56 <Yves> fixed (ldp-ucr link)
15:19:59 <TallTed> TallTed has joined #ldp
15:20:22 <bblfish> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2012Dec/0100.html
15:20:32 <dret> should we accept rgarcia's proposal?
15:20:40 <Arnaud> proposed: close issue-9, accepting Raul's proposal
15:20:43 <bblfish> Ah yes, so this was my test: "Predicate URIs used in BPR representations should be HTTP URLs which when dereferenced provide the definition of said term."
15:21:02 <dret> arnaud proposes to close the issue, accepting this proposal
15:21:17 <cygri> q+
15:21:20 <bblfish> q-
15:21:59 <dret> cygri asks about plans for a best practices document, maybe separate from the specification
15:22:13 <dret> Arnaud points to the deployment guide
15:22:15 <SteveS> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Deployment_Guide
15:22:27 <Zakim> -??P24
15:22:49 <dret> cygri points out that we shouldn't require things that are not necessary, and we shouldn't overconstrain the protocol
15:23:07 <stevebattle> Yes - I agree it's best practice.
15:23:10 <Zakim> -Ashok
15:23:39 <bblfish> q+
15:23:43 <cygri> ack me
15:23:55 <Arnaud> ack bblfish
15:23:58 <dret> maybe we could always keep SHOULD's in the spec?
15:24:08 <stevebattle> But agree they certainly shouldn't be LDP Resources.
15:24:12 <cygri> q+
15:24:25 <Arnaud> ack cygri
15:24:27 <dret> bblfish agrees with cygri
15:25:15 <sergio> q+
15:25:29 <dret> f2f discussion around use of datatypes: everybody said maybe forbidding datatypes is not such a great idea, we shouldn't do it if this doesn't break anything
15:25:44 <Arnaud> Proposed: close issue-9, this is really best practice and should be moved out of the spec into the deployment guide
15:25:53 <dret> as a result of the f2f, the datatypes were moved to the deployment guide
15:25:59 <Arnaud> ack sergio
15:26:51 <rgarcia> q+
15:26:54 <dret> sorry sergio, i have a hard time understanding you. could you summarize on IRC for the minutes? thanks.
15:26:58 <Zakim> -[IPcaller.a]
15:27:00 <Arnaud> ack ragarcia
15:27:09 <Arnaud> ack rgarcia
15:27:10 <stevebattle> This proposal should state that the text of 4.1.8 should change.
15:27:12 <Zakim> +[GVoice]
15:27:26 <sergio> the point is that there are many open points at the spec, so maybe we should combine it with some best practices
15:27:30 <cygri> +1
15:27:32 <rgarcia> +1
15:27:34 <svillata> +1
15:27:37 <sergio> +1
15:27:40 <BartvanLeeuwen> +1
15:27:42 <nmihindu> +1
15:27:47 <AndyS> +1 This is general LD good practice, not LDP specific.
15:27:47 <roger> +1
15:27:54 <dret> arnaud proposed to close issue-9, straw poll about this
15:27:57 <stevebattle> +1
15:27:58 <TallTed> +1+0
15:27:58 <bblfish> +1
15:28:03 <dret> +1
15:28:04 <TallTed> oops  +0
15:28:12 <Zakim> +??P2
15:28:23 <dret> close ISSUE-9
15:28:23 <trackbot> Closed ISSUE-9 Should properties used in BPR representations be BPRs?.
15:28:34 <Ashok> zakim, ??P2 is me
15:28:34 <Zakim> +Ashok; got it
<Arnaud> resolved: close issue-9, this is best practice, move text to deployment guide
15:28:42 <dret> subtopic: ISSUE-10
15:28:42 <trackbot> ISSUE-10 -- Include clarifications and guidance around ETags -- open
15:28:42 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/10
15:29:26 <dret> some discussions on the mailing list, rgarcia presents an evolved proposal
15:30:02 <bblfish> There was something weak etags which sounds good to me
15:30:09 <SteveS> Proposal I believe is within here http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2013Feb/0035.html
15:30:14 <dret> what are the different ways to go?
15:30:59 <bblfish> q+
15:31:00 <dret> rgarcia says there's agreement to weak ETags, but HTTP/1.1 requires strong ETags for certain functions
15:31:10 <Arnaud> ack bblfish
15:31:28 <Zakim> -Ashok
15:31:34 <SteveS> From Prierre-Antoine: "The server MAY provide a strong etag (ref), but only if it can guarantee that the same graph will always be serialized the exact same way (byte-wise). This is not always the case, as the order of triples or blank node labels are not significant in RDF and may vary across serializations. If the server can not ensure that, the etags it provides MUST be weak etags (ref)."
15:31:35 <Ashok> q+
15:31:35 <Ashok> q+
15:31:55 <dret> bblfish suggests that this info should be put into the spec
15:31:57 <dret> q+
15:31:59 <SteveS> q+
15:32:09 <ericP> ack dret
15:32:09 <Arnaud> ack dret
15:32:29 <Ashok> My question was "Do we need to specify how the server creates etagas"
15:32:45 <rgarcia> Ashok, I don't think so
15:32:53 <bblfish> +1
15:32:53 <cygri> dret++
15:32:56 <Arnaud> ack steves
15:32:57 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
15:33:09 <stevebattle> q+
15:33:15 <Yves> I recommend that people read https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional-21#section-2.1
15:33:24 <dret> my suggestion is to link to the specs for informative purposes
15:33:25 <bblfish> no I don't htink so
15:33:32 <Arnaud> ack ashok
15:33:32 <dret> q+
15:33:49 <dret> ashok asks whether we need to specify how ETags are created
15:33:53 <Arnaud> ack stevebattle
15:34:12 <dret> stevebattle says we should say something, but maybe best practices
15:34:17 <Arnaud> ack dret
15:34:34 <Zakim> -[IPcaller]
15:34:42 <stevebattle> Best practice is going to be bigger than the spec :)
15:34:48 <sergio> xD
15:34:55 <ericP> q+ to ask if the spec needs to say whether weak ETags are sufficient to identify identical semantic content
15:35:43 <Arnaud> ack ericP
15:35:43 <Zakim> ericP, you wanted to ask if the spec needs to say whether weak ETags are sufficient to identify identical semantic content
15:35:43 <stevebattle> qq+
15:35:47 <dret> yves points out that HTTPbis already talks about this, so maybe just link to that
15:35:48 <stevebattle> q+
15:37:13 <dret> arnaud points out the specific text of the issue: should we leave the spec like it is, or does it need a change?
15:37:32 <Arnaud> ack stevebattle
15:37:36 <dret> arnaud says people seem to converge towards not changing the spec
15:38:11 <dret> stevebattle says that HTTPbis maybe not have specific text about ETags for RDF media types
15:38:15 <ericP> i think that a decision like "identical weak ETags indicate identical graphs" still needs to go on the LDP spec
15:38:38 <rgarcia> q+
15:38:43 <ericP> that seems like a normative behavior that folks will need to be able to count on and test
15:39:01 <Yves> more in "if weak etags are used, equality of weak etags MUST mean identical graphs"
15:39:23 <Arnaud> ack rgarcia
15:39:28 <dret> we cannot change HTTP at that level (you're kind of inventing "strong ETags specifically for RDF content")
15:39:31 <Yves> then leave the use and creation od etags (weak or not) that to implementation detail
15:40:00 <Ruben> Ruben has joined #ldp
15:41:08 <bblfish> that sounds interesting.
15:41:36 <dret> not sure how well that would work for clients that just talk HTTP
15:41:59 <dret> ISSUE-10 remains open for now
15:42:09 <SteveS> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Deployment_Guide
15:42:15 <bblfish> ok
15:42:17 <bblfish> thanks
15:42:32 <dret> subtopic: ISSUE-37 (The Model)
15:43:15 <ericP> +1 to specific textual proposals
15:43:17 <ericP> !
15:43:59 <dret> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/ISSUE-37 has been growing
15:44:23 <dret> no discussions around http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/ISSUE-37#Proposed_Spec_Section_.28for_the_LDP_Spec.29 on the mailing list so far
15:44:23 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
15:44:32 <bblfish> makes sense
15:44:41 <SteveS> Is the "Home Resource" and "Containers" section part of which proposal?
15:45:56 <JohnArwe> +1 SteveS how do I read the HR/Containers section, as Erik's, Henry's, neither?
15:46:04 <roger> +q
15:46:08 <dret> everything from the linked section to the end of the page is intended to be the text
15:46:43 <Arnaud> ack roger
15:46:50 <JohnArwe> the "Erik Wilde", "Henry Story" chunks - are those alternatives?  mut excl, additive?
15:47:00 <dret> bblfish wants to se a better definition of the resource that are made available
15:47:04 <bblfish> that's exclusive
15:47:42 <SteveS> q+
15:48:02 <dret> oops, sorry, i didn't see the changed structure so far; i think bblfish's section is just for the intro section...
15:48:06 <Arnaud> ack steves
15:48:10 <bblfish> ( mind you we should discuss that )
15:48:36 <dret> steves points out that the text currently is a bit confusing (mixed authors)
15:49:00 <BartvanLeeuwen> +1 to that
15:49:01 <AndyS> A link is a URI?
15:49:12 <dret> please mail proposals on the mailing list
15:49:19 <dret> you're asking me, AndyS
15:49:31 <bblfish> ok.
15:49:37 <dret> i'll try to keep up with change proposals as they come in...
15:49:37 <sergio> ok
15:49:44 <sergio> issue-34?
15:49:44 <trackbot> ISSUE-34 -- Adding and removing arcs in weak aggregation -- open
15:49:44 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/34
15:49:50 <dret> subtopic: ISSUE-34
15:50:12 <AndyS> generally - I am unclear everyone is talking about the same thing. May be over-solving some issues.
15:50:28 <TallTed> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/ISSUE-34
15:50:34 <SteveS> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2013Feb/0014.html
15:50:51 <dret> AndyS, if yes: a link is a URI with a link relation (a type), i.e. it is something you follow because you want to do something in the protocol flow.
15:50:56 <JohnArwe> q+
15:51:22 <Arnaud> ack john
15:51:27 <stevebattle> Are you sure that was option 3?
15:51:54 <stevebattle> I read option 3 as every direct member of a container is aggregated.
15:52:10 <dret> JohnArwe says this is mixing the interaction model and the way how to find out about the interaction model while you're using it
15:52:12 <AndyS> That's a "no" then :-) URIs aren't typed. Two concepts of "link" RDF/LD link = URI.  Part of a triple.  Atom link - entry in a container = several triples.
15:52:30 <stevebattle> Sorry - I confused myself
15:52:37 <stevebattle> s/aggregated/composed/
15:52:38 <Ashok> q+
15:52:42 <stevebattle> doh!
15:52:46 <Arnaud> ack ashok
15:53:26 <JohnArwe> ashok is that a data or behavioral question in your view?
15:53:32 <bblfish> q+
15:53:48 <bblfish> q-
15:54:00 <JohnArwe> "class" I could hear as "onotology", when I think the distinction is behavioral (and any ontology is a consequence of that)
15:54:02 <Arnaud> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/ISSUE-34
15:54:19 <Ashok> John, not sure I understand your question
15:54:53 <roger> +q
15:55:08 <JohnArwe> @ashok, when you said the first question is "one class or two", I'm trying to understand what You mean by 'class' there... rdfs:Class vs behvaioral
15:55:42 <JohnArwe> q+
15:55:56 <Arnaud> ack roger
15:55:58 <Ashok> Ah, I meant rdfs:Class
15:56:14 <dret> AndyS: a link in atom often could be seen as just one triple, but not just a URI. but it can have more complex information as well, such as media type information associated with the link as well "go to URI x if you want to edit this resource which is of media type y"
15:56:54 <Arnaud> ack john
15:56:57 <bblfish> q+
15:56:59 <JohnArwe> s/behva/behav/
15:57:04 <Arnaud> ack bbllfish
15:57:34 <Arnaud> ack bblfish
15:57:39 <ericP> q+ to ask for motivating use cases for containership (presuming that still means automagic deletion)
15:57:47 <SteveS> q+
15:58:00 <dret> bblfish just wanted to highlight that there are several ways to do aggregation
15:58:18 <Arnaud> ack ericP
15:58:18 <Zakim> ericP, you wanted to ask for motivating use cases for containership (presuming that still means automagic deletion)
15:58:50 <Zakim> -TallTed
15:59:34 <Arnaud> ack steves
15:59:46 <AndyS> dret, I prefer the submission style-design.  additional complexity make LDP harder to use ; different to link in other LD (and HTML for that matter) [but I'd drop the recursive delete as not cool URIs but that's fine tuning]
15:59:50 <roger> +q
16:00:40 <dret> SteveS points out that there are different interaction models underlying the proposals of bblfish and JohnArwe
16:00:59 <Arnaud> ack roger
16:01:01 <dret> Arnaud proposes to start from JohnArwe's proposal
16:01:58 <bblfish> sounds good
16:01:58 <Zakim> -cygri
16:01:59 <stevebattle> I'm not sure about that either.
16:02:17 <stevebattle> 0
16:02:19 <sergio> 0
16:02:21 <ericP> 0
16:02:21 <AndyS> Link to John's proposal for issue 34?
16:02:25 <SteveS> +1
16:02:28 <roger> -1
16:02:30 <Dave> 0
16:02:30 <svillata> 0
16:02:38 <JohnArwe> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Issue-34:_Back_to_Basics
16:02:41 <dret> proposal: let's pick JohnArwe's proposal for ISSUE-34
16:02:43 <BartvanLeeuwen> +1
16:02:44 <rgarcia> +1
16:02:46 <Kalpa> Kalpa has left #ldp
16:02:51 <AndyS> Ta - capitalization:-( !!!!
16:02:55 <bblfish> I think it's worth looking at it in more detail for next week
16:03:01 <dret> straw poll abandonded, will be help next week
<dret> Meeting adjourned
16:03:10 <Zakim> -bblfish
16:03:15 <Dave> By
16:03:15 <Ruben> Ruben has left #ldp
16:03:16 <Zakim> -roger
16:03:17 <Zakim> -BartvanLeeuwen
16:03:17 <Zakim> -SteveS
16:03:18 <Zakim> -sergio
16:03:19 <bblfish> bye
16:03:19 <Zakim> -[IPcaller]
16:03:21 <Zakim> -svillata
16:03:21 <Zakim> -Arnaud
16:03:22 <Zakim> -JohnArwe
16:03:26 <Zakim> -Yves
16:03:30 <stevebattle> yes
16:03:35 <SteveS_> SteveS_ has joined #ldp
16:03:36 <Zakim> -AndyS
16:03:46 <Zakim> -Sandro
16:03:55 <Zakim> -rgarcia
16:04:23 <AndyS> AndyS has left #ldp
16:06:20 <SteveS__> SteveS__ has joined #ldp
16:12:37 <stevebattle> You should be using if-match and if-none-match with etags
16:18:00 <stevebattle> Also, if we only support weak etags for RDF we have to make sure that PATCH operates on the semantics rather than on the syntax.
16:18:42 <bhyland> bhyland has joined #ldp
16:19:28 <stevebattle> I'm not sure layering on http changes it though
16:23:15 <dret> how do we close this to start generating the minutes?
16:24:24 <ericP> gonna cost you
16:24:39 <sandro> :-)     https://cgi.w3.org/member-bin/wiki_scribe
16:25:19 <dret> CGI! oh sweet nostalgia!
16:25:40 <sandro> it'll still be CGI, just wont be on a machine called CGI.       :-)
16:26:34 <Zakim> -SteveBattle
16:27:25 <ericP> Zakim, who is here?
16:27:25 <Zakim> On the phone I see dret, nmihindu, ericP
16:27:26 <Zakim> On IRC I see bhyland, SteveS, TallTed, roger, dret, nmihindu, cygri, Zakim, RRSAgent, sergio, betehess, Arnaud, stevebattle, jmvanel, bblfish, trackbot, Yves, sandro, ericP
16:30:31 <stevebattle2> stevebattle2 has joined #ldp
16:31:59 <ericP> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/file/39114b935c70/tests/basic
16:35:41 <sergio> ericP: currently I was thinking about testing my draft implementation in Apache Marmotta
16:36:56 <sergio> I'll try to use those test suites
16:38:13 <nmihindu> ericP: It would nice if we actually parameterize those URLs
16:38:26 <nmihindu> ericP: but it looks great
16:42:56 <sergio> hope for the next telco I'll have some tests running
16:43:12 <sergio> according my interpretation, of course
16:43:15 <sergio> :-S
16:47:22 <ericP> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/default/tests/Overview.html#createdResource
16:47:45 <SteveS> SteveS has joined #ldp
16:47:54 <ericP> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/file/39114b935c70/tests/basic/NetWorth_1_4.trig
16:49:44 <stevebattle> stevebattle has joined #ldp
16:50:46 <sergio> ericP: for instance right now I don't have a clear strategy to create LDPR or LDPC
16:50:52 <sergio> nmihindu: do you?
16:57:33 <ericP> i made a guess and went for it
17:00:54 <Zakim> -dret
17:02:12 <Zakim> -nmihindu
17:06:05 <sergio> ericP: summarizing?
17:06:20 <sergio> I mean, to check if we are thinking about the same
17:07:13 <Zakim> disconnecting the lone participant, ericP, in SW_LDP()10:00AM
17:07:14 <Zakim> SW_LDP()10:00AM has ended
17:07:14 <Zakim> Attendees were cygri, AndyS, SteveBattle, Arnaud, rgarcia, kalpa, BartvanLeeuwen, SteveS, TallTed, bblfish, Sandro, dret, Yves, Ashok, roger, JohnArwe, nmihindu, sergio, svillata,
17:07:14 <Zakim> ... ericP, [IPcaller]
17:28:05 <nmihindu> nmihindu has joined #ldp
17:35:40 <ericP> sergio, umm, i sumarizing the conversation with dret about tests?
17:37:17 <sergio> ok
17:37:25 <sergio> let's tak tomorrow
17:37:32 <sergio> s/tak/talk
17:41:11 <TallTed> TallTed has joined #ldp
18:05:36 <AndyS> AndyS has joined #ldp
19:05:07 <SteveS> SteveS has joined #ldp
19:05:27 <SteveS> SteveS has joined #ldp
19:15:59 <bblfish> bblfish has joined #ldp
20:12:58 <SteveS_> SteveS_ has joined #ldp
20:23:03 <Zakim> Zakim has left #ldp
# SPECIAL MARKER FOR CHATSYNC.  DO NOT EDIT THIS LINE OR BELOW.  SRCLINESUSED=00000473