From Linked Data Platform
Please justify/explain all edits to this page, in your "edit summary" text.
14:56:12 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #ldp 14:56:12 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/02/18-ldp-irc 14:56:14 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public 14:56:14 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #ldp 14:56:16 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be LDP 14:56:16 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_LDP()10:00AM scheduled to start in 4 minutes 14:56:17 <trackbot> Meeting: Linked Data Platform (LDP) Working Group Teleconference 14:56:17 <trackbot> Date: 18 February 2013 14:58:30 <Zakim> SW_LDP()10:00AM has now started 14:58:36 <Zakim> +[IPcaller] 14:58:48 <AndyS> zakim, IPcaller is me 14:58:48 <Zakim> +AndyS; got it 14:59:08 <JohnArwe> JohnArwe has joined #ldp 14:59:29 <Zakim> +??P1 14:59:40 <Zakim> +JohnArwe 14:59:50 <Ashok> Ashok has joined #ldp 15:00:02 <Zakim> +Arnaud 15:01:34 <Zakim> +??P5 15:01:54 <Ashok> zakim, ??P% is me 15:01:54 <Zakim> sorry, Ashok, I do not recognize a party named '??P%' 15:02:15 <Ashok> zakim, ??P5 is me 15:02:15 <Zakim> +Ashok; got it 15:02:31 <roger> roger has joined #ldp 15:02:41 <Zakim> + +44.208.573.aaaa 15:04:05 <Zakim> +[IPcaller] 15:04:13 <Zakim> +SteveBattle 15:04:18 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software 15:04:32 <kalpa> kalpa has joined #ldp 15:04:35 <Zakim> +Yves 15:04:37 <Arnaud> zakim, who's here/ 15:04:37 <Zakim> I don't understand 'who's here/', Arnaud 15:04:37 <TallTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me 15:04:38 <Zakim> +TallTed; got it 15:04:41 <TallTed> Zakim, mute me 15:04:41 <Zakim> TallTed should now be muted 15:04:41 <sergio> sergio has joined #ldp 15:04:42 <krp> krp has joined #ldp 15:04:49 <Arnaud> zakim, who's here? 15:04:49 <Zakim> On the phone I see AndyS, ??P1, JohnArwe, Arnaud, Ashok, +44.208.573.aaaa, [IPcaller], SteveBattle, TallTed (muted), Yves 15:04:52 <Zakim> On IRC I see krp, sergio, kalpa, roger, Ashok, JohnArwe, Zakim, RRSAgent, TallTed, AndyS, oberger, stevebattle, Yves, Arnaud, bblfish, jmvanel, jmv, trackbot, betehess, sandro, 15:04:52 <Zakim> ... ericP 15:05:12 <sergio> Zakim, I am [IPcaller] 15:05:12 <Zakim> ok, sergio, I now associate you with [IPcaller] 15:05:22 <roger> zakam, I am aaaa 15:05:26 <Zakim> +bblfish 15:05:33 <roger> zakim, I am aaaa 15:05:33 <Zakim> +roger; got it 15:05:36 <Zakim> +EricP 15:05:45 <bblfish> hi 15:05:53 <Arnaud> zakim, who's here? 15:05:53 <Zakim> On the phone I see AndyS, ??P1, JohnArwe, Arnaud, Ashok, roger, [IPcaller], SteveBattle, TallTed (muted), Yves, bblfish, EricP 15:05:53 <bblfish> I can scribe 15:05:56 <Zakim> On IRC I see krp, sergio, kalpa, roger, Ashok, JohnArwe, Zakim, RRSAgent, TallTed, AndyS, oberger, stevebattle, Yves, Arnaud, bblfish, jmvanel, jmv, trackbot, betehess, sandro, 15:05:56 <Zakim> ... ericP 15:06:35 <Zakim> +??P14 15:06:39 <bblfish> just getting ahead of the scribe 15:06:48 <bblfish> scribe: bblfish 15:06:57 <krp> zakim, I am ??P14 15:06:57 <Zakim> +krp; got it <bblfish> Topic: Admin 15:06:58 <bblfish> subTopic: Minutes from Feb 11 15:07:13 <bblfish> resolved: Minutes from Feb 11 approved <bblfish> subTopic: Next meetings 15:07:32 <bblfish> Arnaud: Next meeting is next week 15:07:39 <bblfish> ... F2F is getting closer 15:07:52 <W051C> W051C has joined #ldp 15:07:54 <bblfish> ... no sponsors yet for the meeting <bblfish> ... what's the plan for food at the meeting? 15:08:35 <bblfish> what is the URL for the F2F? 15:08:52 <sergio> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/F2F2 15:08:56 <bblfish> thanks 15:09:00 <sergio> yw 15:09:00 <bblfish> who is talking? 15:09:15 <stevebattle> That's ericP 15:09:28 <nmihindu> nmihindu has joined #ldp 15:09:32 <bblfish> ericP: we can use the cafeteria 15:10:02 <Ashok> Eric, do we have a room yet? #15:10:24 <bblfish> Arnaud - I missed what arnaud said. 15:10:32 <bblfish> Topic: Tracking of Actions and Issues <bblfish> subtopic: Actions 15:10:38 <bblfish> Action-42? 15:10:38 <trackbot> ACTION-42 does not exist. 15:11:07 <bblfish> Action-36? 15:11:07 <trackbot> ACTION-36 -- John Arwe to [EDITOR] Make changes for ISSUE-42 (moving common props to deployment guide) -- due 2013-01-14 -- PENDINGREVIEW 15:11:07 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/actions/36 15:11:29 <bblfish> Arnaud: anyone against closing it? 15:11:37 <bblfish> Proposal: Close Action-36 15:11:41 <stevebattle> +1 15:11:47 <JohnArwe> +1 15:12:03 <Arnaud> +1 15:12:04 <bblfish> Arnaud: if we want to turn this into an actual document we need someone to say "I'll do this" 15:12:09 <bblfish> what was this? 15:12:17 <bblfish> Resolved: Close action-36 15:12:17 <trackbot> Closed ACTION-36 [EDITOR] Make changes for ISSUE-42 (moving common props to deployment guide). 15:12:23 <JohnArwe> turning deployment guide into document 15:12:24 <stevebattle> this was the deployment guide 15:13:02 <bblfish> Arnaud: we'll need an editor for the deployment guide at some point ( that's what "this" above) 15:13:11 <bblfish> who is speaking? 15:13:24 <JohnArwe> Sergio volunteers 15:13:25 <bblfish> Sergio was saying he could take care of it 15:13:41 <bblfish> please put yourself on queue, so I can see who speaks 15:13:52 <sergio> sorry bblfish 15:13:55 <bblfish> Arnaud: any other open actions? 15:14:08 <bblfish> subTopic: Raised issues 15:14:30 <bblfish> which issue? 15:14:44 <JohnArwe> issue-49? 15:14:44 <trackbot> ISSUE-49 -- Canonical URL - how to communicate its value to clients -- raised 15:14:44 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/49 15:14:48 <bblfish> thanks 15:15:38 <bblfish> John is summarising that issue 15:16:26 <bblfish> Arnaud: If HTTP experts can help out 15:16:29 <Zakim> -??P1 15:16:45 <JohnArwe> basically a question of how to communicate the canonical url back to clients. is Location right, Content-Location, or something else? 15:17:05 <bblfish> Steve: Content-Location is not used in caches as it may be spoofed 15:17:18 <JohnArwe> s/Steve:/Yves:/ 15:17:26 <bblfish> Yves will need to read the issue before opening it. 15:17:30 <bblfish> sorry 15:17:36 <Yves> not before opening it, before commenting ;) 15:17:42 <bblfish> Resolved: open issue-49 15:17:42 <trackbot> Re-opened ISSUE-49 Canonical URL - how to communicate its value to clients. 15:17:54 <Ashok> q+ 15:18:16 <bblfish> Topic: Test Suite Framework 15:18:51 <JohnArwe> agenda link https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/file/39114b935c70/tests/basic 15:19:25 <bblfish> Arnaud: Alexandre proposed something to create a Test suite at TPAC and now we will listen to what has been hapening 15:19:42 <bblfish> who is speaking again? 15:19:54 <Ashok> q- 15:19:55 <Arnaud> ericp 15:20:22 <bblfish> ericp: the goal was to say what is the initial state and requests and replies and what would be the final state 15:20:43 <bblfish> ... looking at https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/file/39114b935c70/tests/basic 15:20:56 <bblfish> ... very similar to the test suite in RDF WG, SPARQL WG, etc... 15:20:57 <Ashok> I want to raise an issue on setting page size 15:21:09 <bblfish> (also similar to the WebID test suite we were working on btw.) 15:21:46 <bblfish> ... the general structure is that there is a manifest.ttl which says there is a list https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/file/39114b935c70/tests/basic/Manifest.ttl of entries and they are listed in that document 15:22:16 <bblfish> The specifics of each entry are listed below in the document 15:22:54 <bblfish> looking at :NetWorth_0_4_post 15:23:10 <bblfish> looking at initialState <NetWorth_0_4.trig> 15:23:18 <JohnArwe> 0 = initial number of members in container 15:23:24 <JohnArwe> 4 = members/page 15:23:33 <bblfish> ... then there is an action of type post 15:24:03 <bblfish> ... 2 urls: one for the page that gets posted and one for the page that gets created 15:24:42 <bblfish> ... these are translated from test run internally 15:24:55 <bblfish> ... then there is a final state in the trig 15:26:23 <bblfish> ... in favor of using tests very early on 15:26:40 <bblfish> Arnaud: before we can all agree that we can use that we need feeback from other people. 15:26:42 <sergio> q? 15:27:12 <roger> +q 15:27:18 <Zakim> -Ashok 15:27:23 <bblfish> ericp: there is a line in there called status saying that this is a proposed test. Then one can make test tests 15:27:36 <sergio> q+ 15:27:42 <stevebattle> q+ 15:27:50 <bblfish> Arnaud: looking to see if people are happy with the tests 15:28:01 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.a] 15:28:22 <bblfish> Someone joined 15:28:45 <bblfish> All is self documenting. 15:29:07 <bblfish> q? 15:29:12 <Arnaud> ack roger 15:29:54 <bblfish> roger: It looks pretty good, and the only thing I would ask is ... the nice thing is how it is broken down. It would be nice if it were possible to compose these atomic parts into a larger journey 15:30:41 <Arnaud> zakim, who's on the call? 15:30:41 <Zakim> On the phone I see AndyS, JohnArwe, Arnaud, roger, [IPcaller], SteveBattle, TallTed (muted), Yves, bblfish, EricP, krp, [IPcaller.a] 15:30:42 <bblfish> ericp: Networth can be run as individual tests, but running them in sequence should be possible 15:31:00 <Arnaud> zakim, IPCaller is sergio 15:31:00 <Zakim> +sergio; got it 15:31:06 <bblfish> ... line 42, the final state is Net..404 and the next one has that as an initial state 15:31:06 <Arnaud> q? 15:31:23 <bblfish> eg: rdft:finalState <NetWorth_4_4.trig> . 15:31:31 <bblfish> or rdft:initialState <NetWorth_3_4.trig> ; 15:31:36 <Arnaud> ack IPCaller 15:31:49 <Arnaud> ack [IPcaller] 15:32:04 <Arnaud> ack stevebattle 15:32:04 <bblfish> sergio: already started implementing something like this, and will have an implementation too 15:32:21 <bblfish> stevebattle: Is there a process for adding our own tests. 15:32:31 <bblfish> ericp: every body has access to hg 15:32:51 <bblfish> stevebattle: would be nice to have links to URIs for individual use case 15:33:01 <Zakim> -[IPcaller.a] 15:33:05 <bblfish> ericp: needs a predicate for that but +1 15:33:31 <stevebattle> I'll research that (URI for link to use-case). 15:33:41 <Zakim> +[IPcaller] 15:33:54 <Arnaud> q? 15:34:13 <bblfish> ericp is not married to the naming converntion, 15:34:24 <stevebattle> Yes, '5 of 4' hints that this naming scheme might get unmanageable. 15:35:13 <bblfish> Arnaud: if people want to add tests how do they choose their nameing the tests. 15:35:27 <JohnArwe> zakim, [IPCaller] is sergio 15:35:27 <Zakim> +sergio; got it 15:35:29 <bblfish> ericp: one could annotate the tests with tests attributes 15:35:46 <bblfish> ... so one can then query the tests to see if it has particular features 15:36:06 <bblfish> +1 seems good to me 15:36:26 <Arnaud> q? 15:37:02 <bblfish> Arnaud: people should try seeing if they can run these tests. 15:37:59 <bblfish> Topic: Open Issues <bblfish> subtopic: LDP Model Section 15:38:14 <JohnArwe> did you want to go back to ashok? 15:38:37 <bblfish> Arnaud: planned to discuss the model issue there were two proposals, Eric is sick, so not much to talk about 15:38:50 <bblfish> s/Eric/Erik/ 15:39:21 <stevebattle> q+ 15:39:28 <bblfish> Arnaud: leave it up to the editors perhaps to take this? 15:39:28 <Arnaud> ack stevebattle 15:39:56 <bblfish> stevebattle: prefers bblfish's pragraph without new concepts being involved 15:40:06 <roger> +q 15:40:11 <stevebattle> might be interesting 15:40:14 <bblfish> Arnaud: straw poll on those two versions 15:40:14 <Arnaud> ack roger 15:40:20 <JohnArwe> s/pragraph/paragraph/ 15:40:24 <AndyS> +1 to Henry's approach 15:40:25 <bblfish> roger: is not happy with either of them. 15:40:44 <bblfish> roger: proposes to move this to F2F 15:41:01 <roger> correction : is not 100% happy with either of them ... 15:41:01 <JohnArwe> q+ 15:41:08 <bblfish> Arnaud: we need to converge on a piece of text. Let's pick one and discuss the changed to make it 15:41:16 <Arnaud> ack john 15:42:38 <bblfish> Arnaud: straw poll to settle on Henry Story (bblfish)'s proposal to get going and move on from there as a starting point 15:42:39 <JohnArwe> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/ISSUE-37#Proposed_Spec_Section_.28for_the_LDP_Spec.29 15:42:40 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: select Henry's text as the status quo for the proposed section 15:42:43 <stevebattle> +1 15:42:45 <bblfish> +1 15:42:50 <sergio> +1 15:42:59 <Ashok> I think we should wait until F2F 15:43:01 <roger> +0 15:43:04 <krp> +0 15:43:11 <roger> +1 to Ashok 15:43:33 <JohnArwe> +0 15:43:37 <bblfish> ( ok I had to vote for my own proposal ) 15:43:52 <nmihindu> +0 15:43:55 <JohnArwe> I have no criticisms of Henry's fwiw 15:43:59 <bblfish> Arnaud: one had to try this out 15:44:17 <bblfish> ... we'll leave this for later, and move on 15:44:22 <bblfish> subtopic: ISSUE-13 15:44:22 <trackbot> ISSUE-13 -- Include clarifications about BPC representations that include member triples -- open 15:44:22 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/13 15:45:22 <stevebattle> q+ 15:45:46 <Arnaud> ack stevebattle 15:46:30 <bblfish> stevebattle: agrees that it is useful to represent these non membership properties with a container and that it is worth adding that metadata to the container ( sent a longer mail to the list) 15:46:38 <JohnArwe> q+ 15:46:44 <roger> +q 15:46:47 <JohnArwe> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2013Feb/0108.html is where I suggested answered 15:46:49 <bblfish> Arnaud: there seem to be two seperate questions in there 15:46:52 <Arnaud> ack john 15:46:57 <bblfish> ( can someone summarise those ? ) 15:47:21 <stevebattle> we could 'inlaw' it 15:47:35 <bblfish> JohnArwe: I like the flexibility. But if you want to update the members go to the members URL that's what its for. 15:47:58 <Arnaud> ack roger 15:48:02 <bblfish> ... does not understand how the conclusion was drawn from the antecedent. 15:48:33 <bblfish> roger: summarise if you have collection and have a bunch of members of the collection, 15:48:51 <JohnArwe> q+ 15:48:54 <stevebattle> yes - That's what I would call the metadata, as opposed to the data in the LDPR itself. 15:49:03 <bblfish> Arnaud: the minimum should be a list of triples on the member of resource. 15:49:08 <bblfish> q+ 15:49:25 <bblfish> +1 for stevebattle's point 15:49:42 <TallTed> TallTed has joined #ldp 15:50:01 <stevebattle> Membership triples are those that use the membership predicate, no? 15:50:23 <JohnArwe> +1 steveB's membership triple def. 15:50:32 <JohnArwe> q- 15:50:35 <bblfish> Arnaud: if you change the representation of the elements of an LDPR on a container what does it mean 15:50:50 <Arnaud> ack bblfish 15:51:36 <JohnArwe> q+ 15:52:19 <bblfish> bblfish: I was arguing it should be metadata because its less dangerous 15:52:37 <stevebattle> Let's leave the door open... 15:52:38 <ericP> i note that the NetWorth example includes e.g. stock prices in the container listing 15:52:49 <Arnaud> ack john 15:52:51 <bblfish> Arnaud: that was the point of the issue, yes. So perhaps people don't want to close the door... Just wanted this to be highlighted. 15:53:22 <bblfish> John: there seems to be use cases where it is needed 15:54:08 <bblfish> ... This has to do with how people are going to use that. It needs to be permitted for efficiency reasons. 15:54:13 <bblfish> q+ 15:54:22 <Arnaud> ack bblfish 15:54:44 <bblfish> that's it 15:55:08 <bblfish> bblfish: just if we can have the use cases that explain the problem 15:55:08 <stevebattle> And if this u/c isn't in uc&r, help me write one for the next rev. 15:55:14 <bblfish> subtopic: Issue-21 15:55:14 <trackbot> ISSUE-21 -- container affordances -- open 15:55:14 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/21 15:56:10 <JohnArwe> Ashok's "use a property" suggestion was #2 here: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2013Feb/0014.html 15:56:29 <bblfish> Arnaud: summarising the issue 15:56:46 <bblfish> ( bblfish not yet very confident about this as I have not implmented it ) 15:58:21 <bblfish> stevebattle: reverse membership predicate pops up a lot 15:58:30 <roger> +q 15:58:34 <bblfish> ... something like rev="..." 15:58:43 <bblfish> ... cropped up a lot in calimachus 15:58:54 <Arnaud> ack roger 15:59:39 <JohnArwe> q+ 15:59:41 <bblfish> roger: the spec at the moment has a link from the LDPC to the LDPR and there is not one going the other direction. There should be a link the other way around 16:00:00 <bblfish> q+ 16:00:05 <Arnaud> ack john 16:00:31 <bblfish> john, is asking... :-/ 16:00:31 <stevebattle> Navigability (within a given RDF graph such as the LDPC) isn't the issue. Links are bi-navigable. 16:00:36 <bblfish> lsot the question 16:00:38 <Arnaud> ack bblfish 16:00:53 <stevebattle> This is an addenda, not a replacement. 16:01:19 <JohnArwe> as an addendum (per steveb's verbal answer), seems reasonable to first order. as henry asked earlier, do we have any use cases to help understand this more deeply? 16:01:23 <roger> if we are trying to expand the topic of affordances, then issue 21 starts to cross-over with other issues 16:01:27 <bblfish> bblfish: looking for help to see where the use cases for this whole framework is 16:01:32 <roger> for example, issue 26 16:01:38 <stevebattle> wishful thinking :) 16:01:52 <bblfish> Arnaud: we may need to have two issues one for affordances and one for reverse membership. 16:01:57 <JohnArwe> issue-32? 16:01:57 <trackbot> ISSUE-32 -- How can clients discover that a resource is an LDPR or LDPC, and what features are supported? -- open 16:01:57 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/32 16:02:00 <bblfish> Arnaud: lets close the call 16:02:06 <bblfish> Arnaud: talk next week 16:02:08 <JohnArwe> that may be the general case issue arnaud 16:02:08 <stevebattle> bye 16:02:11 <Zakim> -TallTed 16:02:11 <bblfish> Arnaud: meeting is adjourned 16:02:13 <Zakim> -roger 16:02:14 <Zakim> -AndyS 16:02:14 <Zakim> -sergio 16:02:15 <bblfish> thanks 16:02:16 <Zakim> -Yves 16:02:16 <Zakim> -JohnArwe 16:02:17 <Zakim> -EricP 16:02:18 <Zakim> -SteveBattle 16:02:19 <Zakim> -Arnaud 16:02:21 <kalpa> kalpa has left #ldp 16:02:21 <Zakim> -bblfish 16:07:22 <Zakim> disconnecting the lone participant, krp, in SW_LDP()10:00AM 16:07:23 <Zakim> SW_LDP()10:00AM has ended 16:07:23 <Zakim> Attendees were AndyS, JohnArwe, Arnaud, Ashok, +44.208.573.aaaa, SteveBattle, Yves, TallTed, bblfish, roger, EricP, krp, sergio 16:08:52 <bhyland> bhyland has joined #ldp 16:11:57 <krp> krp has joined #ldp 16:49:48 <Arnaud> Arnaud has joined #ldp # SPECIAL MARKER FOR CHATSYNC. DO NOT EDIT THIS LINE OR BELOW. SRCLINESUSED=00000315