From Linked Data Platform
Revision as of 04:21, 26 November 2012 by Alehors
Please justify/explain all edits to this page, in your "edit summary" text.
14:59:58 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #ldp 14:59:58 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/11/19-ldp-irc 15:00:00 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public 15:00:00 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #ldp 15:00:02 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be LDP 15:00:02 <Zakim> ok, trackbot, I see SW_LDP()10:00AM already started 15:00:03 <trackbot> Meeting: Linked Data Platform (LDP) Working Group Teleconference 15:00:03 <trackbot> Date: 19 November 2012 15:00:11 <MacTed> Zakim, who's here? 15:00:11 <Zakim> On the phone I see SteveBattle, OpenLink_Software 15:00:12 <Zakim> On IRC I see RRSAgent, AshokMalhotra, dret, MacTed, ghard, deiu, betehess, SteveS, stevebattle, bblfish, oberger, nathanr, Arnaud, trackbot, Yves, sandro, ericP 15:00:16 <Zakim> +[IBM] 15:00:18 <AshokMalhotra> zakim, code? 15:00:18 <Zakim> the conference code is 53794 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:email@example.com), AshokMalhotra 15:00:19 <MacTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me 15:00:20 <Zakim> +MacTed; got it 15:00:21 <MacTed> Zakim, mute me 15:00:22 <Zakim> MacTed should now be muted 15:00:28 <SteveS> Zakim, [IBM] is me 15:00:29 <Zakim> +SteveS; got it 15:00:30 <Zakim> + +1.510.206.aaaa 15:00:34 <Zakim> +??P31 15:00:38 <Zakim> +??P32 15:00:42 <Zakim> +Arnaud 15:00:43 <deiu> Zakim, ??P31 is me 15:00:43 <Zakim> +deiu; got it 15:00:58 <JohnArwe> JohnArwe has joined #ldp 15:01:01 <dret> zakim, who's here? 15:01:01 <Zakim> On the phone I see SteveBattle, MacTed (muted), SteveS, +1.510.206.aaaa, deiu, ??P32, Arnaud 15:01:01 <deiu> Zakim, mute me please 15:01:03 <Zakim> On IRC I see JohnArwe, Zakim, RRSAgent, AshokMalhotra, dret, MacTed, ghard, deiu, betehess, SteveS, stevebattle, bblfish, oberger, nathanr, Arnaud, trackbot, Yves, sandro, ericP 15:01:03 <Zakim> deiu should now be muted 15:01:06 <Zakim> +JohnArwe 15:01:10 <Zakim> +Ashok_Malhotra 15:01:12 <deiu> scribe: Andrei Sambra 15:01:16 <deiu> scribenick: deiu 15:01:17 <antonis> antonis has joined #ldp 15:01:20 <dret> zakim, +1.510.206.aaaa is me 15:01:21 <Zakim> +dret; got it 15:02:23 <Zakim> +[GVoice] 15:02:33 <ericP> Zakim, [GVoice] is me 15:02:33 <Zakim> +ericP; got it 15:02:36 <cygri> cygri has joined #ldp 15:02:50 <Zakim> +??P49 15:03:00 <oberger> Zakim, ??P49 is me 15:03:00 <Zakim> +oberger; got it 15:03:06 <oberger> Zakim, mute me 15:03:06 <Zakim> oberger should now be muted 15:03:16 <deiu> I am 15:03:53 <nmihindu> nmihindu has joined #ldp 15:03:59 <Zakim> +Yves 15:03:59 <deiu> Chair: Arnaud 15:04:11 <deiu> Topic: Minutes from last week <deiu> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/meeting/2012-11-12 15:04:18 <raul> raul has joined #ldp 15:04:19 <SteveS> has not read or looked yet 15:04:31 <dret> looked and they looked ok 15:04:56 <deiu> RESOLVED: Minutes of Nov 12th approved 15:05:40 <krp> krp has joined #ldp 15:05:40 <oberger> Topic: Tracking of Actions & Issues 15:05:44 <Zakim> +??P60 <deiu> Subtopic: Actions 15:05:46 <deiu> Arnaud: no actions pending review, moving to open actions 15:05:46 <deiu> ... anyone wanting to declare victory on an action? <deiu> ... Hearing none, let's move to issues <deiu> Subtopic: Raised issues 15:05:56 <deiu> ... We have several issues 15:06:04 <raul> zakim, ??P60 is me 15:06:04 <Zakim> +raul; got it 15:06:42 <Zakim> +??P62 15:06:45 <rogerm> rogerm has joined #ldp 15:06:56 <oberger> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/30 15:07:07 <Zakim> +MHausenblas 15:07:11 <nmihindu> zakim, ??P62 is me 15:07:11 <Zakim> +nmihindu; got it 15:07:15 <cygri> zakim, i'm with mhausenblas 15:07:15 <Zakim> +cygri; got it 15:07:33 <Zakim> +??P61 15:07:42 <stevebattle> q+ 15:07:43 <ghard> zakim, ??P61 is me 15:07:46 <Zakim> +ghard; got it 15:07:50 <Zakim> +??P64 15:07:50 <Zakim> + +44.208.573.aabb 15:08:04 <krp> zakim, ??P64 is me 15:08:05 <Zakim> +krp; got it 15:08:19 <deiu> Arnaud: the problem we had with use cases was that it seems unreasonable for people to add use cases and requirements, so we asked people to open issues as a buffer, to wait for issues to be added to the document 15:08:30 <ghard> zakim, mute me 15:08:30 <Zakim> ghard should now be muted 15:08:39 <deiu> ... we should open issue 30 15:08:51 <deiu> ISSUE30? 15:08:56 <stevebattle> q- 15:09:00 <oberger> Issue-30? 15:09:00 <trackbot> ISSUE-30 -- Hierarchical bugtracking service -- open 15:09:00 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/30 15:09:13 <deiu> RESOLVED: Open ISSUE-30 15:09:26 <Zakim> +??P67 15:09:42 <deiu> Issue-36? 15:09:42 <trackbot> ISSUE-36 -- Can applications create new containers? -- raised 15:09:42 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/36 15:09:49 <antonis> Zakim, ??p67 is me 15:09:49 <Zakim> +antonis; got it 15:10:11 <dret> q+ 15:10:20 <Arnaud> ack dret 15:10:25 <deiu> Arnaud: people think this is an important issue 15:10:30 <AndyS> AndyS has joined #ldp 15:10:53 <deiu> ericP: this is a sub-issue of the model issue (ISSUE-37) 15:11:21 <Zakim> -krp 15:11:32 <deiu> Arnaud: you are right; should we then raise it as a different issue or close ISSUE-36 and fold into ISSUE-37? 15:11:44 <cygri> specific issues are better than generic issues 15:11:53 <Zakim> +bblfish 15:11:53 <SteveS> q+ 15:12:07 <Arnaud> ack steves 15:12:08 <deiu> ack SteveS 15:12:11 <bblfish> yes, that was me 15:12:21 <deiu> SteveS: we should leave it there and not close it 15:12:27 <Zakim> +??P64 15:12:35 <deiu> ... what do we mean by application? client or server? 15:12:36 <AndyS> zakim, ??P64 is me 15:12:36 <Zakim> +AndyS; got it 15:12:40 <dret> yes, i think it talks about the protocol 15:12:40 <rogerm> who am i 15:12:56 <cygri> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/36 15:12:56 <Zakim> +??P72 15:13:03 <dret> the server is opaque magic, as far as REST is concerned 15:13:13 <krp> zakim, ??P72 is me 15:13:13 <Zakim> +krp; got it 15:13:41 <deiu> AndyS: the application is in the client, and servers are deployed with an application framework 15:14:11 <Kalpa> Kalpa has joined #ldp 15:14:20 <rogerm> zakim, aabb is me 15:14:20 <Zakim> +rogerm; got it 15:14:34 <deiu> Arnaud: we will open ISSUE-36 and then close it later once we have addressed the bigger question of the model 15:14:43 <AndyS> ... another model is servers are neutral to the application design, and all logic is in the client 15:14:50 <dret> the REST view would be: servers create a media type (i.e., they can engage in conversation supporting this data model and associated behavior), and clients can then engage in conversations. 15:15:12 <oberger> issue-37? 15:15:12 <trackbot> ISSUE-37 -- What is the LDP data model and the LDP interaction model? -- raised 15:15:12 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/37 15:15:13 <Arnaud> ok 15:15:24 <Zakim> -krp 15:15:29 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: open ISSUE-36 15:15:30 <Zakim> +Kalpa 15:15:40 <Arnaud> reopen ISSUE-36 15:15:40 <trackbot> ISSUE-36 Can applications create new containers? re-opened 15:15:49 <deiu> ericP: need clarification to say what it is that we do, what are the resources that we use, the hyperlinks to them 15:16:01 <deiu> ... now everything is implicit and not defined in one place 15:16:10 <Arnaud> s/ericP/dret/ 15:16:10 <deiu> ... maybe we can have an introductory section 15:16:29 <deiu> ... these questions should be answered in that section 15:17:01 <deiu> ... that section could be structured similar to what has been described in the email 127 15:17:15 <deiu> ... we can fill it in in whatever way we see fit 15:17:30 <deiu> ... the only feedback was that we should definitely have that in the spec 15:17:49 <deiu> Arnaud: that will be a useful thing to have, giving us a general guideline 15:18:00 <stevebattle> +1 15:18:16 <dret> i'd volunteer to write such a section, if that help to drive things forward. 15:18:18 <deiu> ... general questions: who can create LDPC/R; who can delete them, etc. 15:18:22 <deiu> ... we need a general description 15:18:35 <deiu> ... no objections 15:18:36 <oberger> There has been already quite some support indeed 15:18:38 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: open ISSUE-37 15:18:46 <Arnaud> reopen ISSUE-37 15:18:46 <trackbot> ISSUE-37 What is the LDP data model and the LDP interaction model? re-opened 15:18:58 <deiu> ISSUE-38? 15:18:58 <trackbot> ISSUE-38 -- filtered representations and inlining -- raised 15:18:58 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/38 15:19:03 <AndyS> Good idea to explicitly state the formal design - seems to help some people. 15:19:11 <deiu> AndyS, +1 15:19:39 <JohnArwe> zakim, who is speaking? 15:19:50 <Zakim> JohnArwe, listening for 10 seconds I could not identify any sounds 15:20:22 <deiu> [rogerm is describing the issue from his email] 15:20:25 <cygri> q+ 15:20:31 <deiu> Arnaud: this is a reasonable question to ask 15:20:37 <cygri> q+ to suggest it can be subsumed under ISSUE-32 15:20:43 <Arnaud> ack cygri 15:20:43 <Zakim> cygri, you wanted to suggest it can be subsumed under ISSUE-32 15:20:45 <cygri> ISSUE-32 15:20:45 <deiu> ... but where do we draw the line? 15:20:48 <cygri> ISSUE-32? 15:20:48 <trackbot> ISSUE-32 -- How can clients discover that a resource is an LDPR or LDPC, and what features are supported? -- open 15:20:48 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/32 15:21:51 <dret> regarding ISSUE-32: in AtomPub, it's up to the client to either embed the resource contents or link to it. then the server simply manages it like that, and always returns it like it was created. 15:21:52 <deiu> Richard: maybe we can update the ISSUE-32 description to mention what ISSUE-38 is trying to achieve 15:21:56 <stevebattle> I don't think this is covered under 32 - 32 is about descriptions of affordances. 15:22:13 <dret> s/ISSUE-32/ISSUE-38/ 15:22:17 <oberger> adding pointers to eachother's in 32 and 38 15:22:33 <Zakim> +??P66 15:22:36 <oberger> deiu, rogerm 15:22:48 <deiu> s/Richard/rogerm 15:22:56 <Arnaud> q? 15:23:06 <SteveS> q+ 15:23:08 <stevebattle> q+ 15:23:21 <Arnaud> ack steveb 15:23:23 <oberger> the 2 Steves again ;) 15:23:30 <deiu> stevebattle: the issues look different (32 vs 38) 15:23:46 <dret> it seems like ISSUE-38 is yet another question that should be addressed in ISSUE-37 15:24:19 <stevebattle> q+ 15:24:30 <deiu> rogerm: I read ISSUE-38 as making resources discoverable, similar to ISSUE-32 15:24:37 <Arnaud> ack steves 15:24:50 <dret> discoverability should be factored out of all issues, it needs to be designed uniformally 15:24:58 <krp_> krp_ has joined #ldp 15:25:19 <dret> +1 to what cygri is saying 15:25:20 <AndyS> Move the discovery aspec of 38 to 32 but leave the filtering as 38 15:25:23 <Zakim> -??P66 15:25:36 <Zakim> +??P66 15:25:42 <deiu> ... should there be separate issue on how to make resources discoverable? There is a concern about discoverability. I don't understand why do we need two issues at this point. 15:25:47 <krp_> zakim, ??P66 is me 15:25:49 <Zakim> +krp_; got it 15:26:24 <dret> maybe adjust ISSUE-38 so that it refers to ISSUE-32? 15:26:29 <deiu> Arnaud: there are two issues: the filtering aspect and discovery 15:26:42 <deiu> ... ISSUE-38 focuses on the filtering aspect 15:26:46 <MacTed> once the feature is defined (#38), then it needs to be discoverable (#32) 15:26:52 <Arnaud> q? 15:27:02 <MacTed> two issues. open #38. 15:27:04 <Arnaud> ack steveb 15:27:11 <bblfish> Issue-38? 15:27:11 <trackbot> ISSUE-38 -- filtered representations and inlining -- raised 15:27:11 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/38 15:27:17 <deiu> ... by making something discoverable it doesn't mean it gets on the filtering system 15:27:32 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: open ISSUE-38 15:27:41 <Arnaud> reopen ISSUE-38 15:27:41 <trackbot> ISSUE-38 filtered representations and inlining re-opened 15:28:09 <deiu> ... we could edit ISSUE-38 to point to ISSUE-32 for discoverability aspects 15:28:13 <deiu> ISSUE-39? 15:28:13 <trackbot> ISSUE-39 -- HTTP status codes used for creation -- raised 15:28:13 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/39 15:28:39 <deiu> Zakim, who is speaking? 15:28:50 <Zakim> deiu, listening for 10 seconds I could not identify any sounds 15:28:59 <stevebattle> Makes sense to me. 15:29:06 <Arnaud> q? 15:29:08 <oberger> 202 Accepted vs 201 Created 15:29:14 <deiu> stevebattle: there's a motivating case for it 15:29:23 <Zakim> -krp_ 15:29:47 <SteveS> s/stevebattle: there's/SteveS: if there's/ 15:30:09 <deiu> rogerm, RESTful representation of "turning a light bulb on", in slow motion; or the lifetime of a virtual machine 15:30:13 <mhausenblas> mhausenblas has joined #ldp 15:30:22 <Zakim> +??P66 15:30:29 <Zakim> -??P32 15:30:37 <stevebattle> Thanks Roger. 15:30:45 <bblfish> yes 15:30:47 <oberger> let's open it yes 15:30:48 <bblfish> sounds good 15:30:51 <SteveS> no objections with opening 15:30:55 <deiu> ... there is a need for cases where there is a process (multiple steps) 15:30:57 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: open ISSUE-39 15:31:04 <Arnaud> reopen ISSUE-39 15:31:04 <trackbot> ISSUE-39 HTTP status codes used for creation re-opened 15:31:09 <dret> we're just "defining HTTP" here, there is no need for us to define these things. this is how resources can behave according to HTTP's uniform interface. 15:31:27 <krp_> zakim, ??P66 is me 15:31:27 <Zakim> +krp_; got it 15:31:37 <deiu> Arnaud: moving on to issues pending review 15:31:40 <oberger> Topic: Use Cases and Requirements 15:31:50 <SteveS> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Use_Cases_And_Requirements 15:32:27 <deiu> SteveS: ongoing work on changing the document to have a more readable narrative style 15:32:44 <SteveS> s/SteveS/stevebattle/ 15:32:48 <deiu> ... today it is a lot more readable 15:33:23 <Zakim> -krp_ 15:33:29 <deiu> ... we have user stories that may not fit, so they need to be removed 15:33:52 <Zakim> +??P32 15:34:05 <deiu> Arnaud: there was a point where we had to freeze the document; are we reworking the structure? 15:34:35 <SteveS> q+ 15:34:48 <cygri> q+ 15:34:53 <Arnaud> ack steves 15:34:55 <deiu> ack SteveS 15:35:02 <cygri> q- 15:35:43 <deiu> SteveS: we talked about how much effort to put into making it into the final form; review the base sections to see what stays in; improving the current sections 15:36:11 <deiu> ... this will be the first thing to review, the workgroup today 15:36:19 <bblfish> Hi, I notice that there is no use-case for making a binary resource 15:36:28 <bblfish> so what would that be? 15:36:29 <bblfish> q+ 15:36:31 <deiu> Arnaud: should we invite the group to start reviewing the document at this point? 15:36:49 <cygri> q+ 15:36:50 <Arnaud> ack bblfish 15:37:01 <deiu> stevebattle: starting next meeting we should invite people that have use cases 15:37:02 <bblfish> hi 15:37:04 <SteveS> Isn't it at http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Use_Cases_And_Requirements#Sharing_binary_resources_and_metadata 15:37:15 <bblfish> so there is a story for it 15:37:24 <Zakim> -??P32 15:37:25 <bblfish> but no use case. What should one do ? 15:37:32 <stevebattle> yes deiu 15:37:34 <oberger> ack cygri 15:37:38 <Arnaud> ack cygri 15:37:46 <bblfish> +1 for cygri that was my question 15:37:54 <Zakim> +??P32 15:38:03 <SteveS> q+ 15:38:04 <oberger> create issues... 15:38:09 <bhyland> bhyland has joined #ldp 15:38:15 <SteveS> q- 15:38:56 <bblfish> but if there is a user-story should there not be another use-case going with it? 15:39:11 <ericP> q? 15:39:42 <ericP> q+ to ask how i should edit the buglist use case 15:39:51 <bblfish> ok 15:39:53 <Arnaud> ack ericP 15:39:53 <Zakim> ericP, you wanted to ask how i should edit the buglist use case 15:40:23 <SteveS> q+ 15:40:29 <Arnaud> ack steves 15:40:33 <deiu> ericP: wonder where to polish the use case for bug tracker 15:40:42 <deiu> ... will be on the mailing list 15:41:02 <deiu> SteveS: what will be the process for use cases? 15:41:07 <ericP> stevebattle, could you give me your favorite template use case from the doc for me to emulate? 15:41:24 <Zakim> -??P32 15:41:39 <deiu> Arnaud: we have two weeks during which people should review the use cases and raise issues if they don't get to an agreement 15:41:41 <Zakim> +??P41 15:41:58 <SteveS> To be clear, we are only proposing "Use Stories" as defined in the document….stevebattle can correct me if Use Cases are being asked for now 15:42:05 <stevebattle> Example scenario (for EricP) http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Use_Cases_And_Requirements#Create_a_resource_within_a_container 15:42:19 <Arnaud> q? 15:42:42 <oberger> user stories 15:42:44 <deiu> Arnaud: by next week, people should have a look at their own use cases 15:42:52 <stevebattle> To recap: user-story authors should review their user-stories 15:43:17 <deiu> ... we don't have a plan to see how we can progress on this 15:44:07 <deiu> stevebattle: at the moment we adding examples to the user stories, and we're hoping to be done by next week 15:44:12 <stevebattle> yes 15:44:22 <deiu> Arnaud: people should add examples to the user stories 15:44:31 <oberger> Arnaud, aha ;) 15:44:40 <stevebattle> we're basing example scenarios on the user-stories. 15:45:07 <stevebattle> We're not adding examples to the user-stories. 15:45:10 <oberger> which year ? ;) 15:45:24 <Zakim> -??P41 15:45:27 <MacTed> Zakim, unmute me 15:45:27 <Zakim> MacTed should no longer be muted 15:45:30 <stevebattle> The spec had a head-start :) 15:45:32 <MacTed> Zakim, mute me 15:45:32 <Zakim> MacTed should now be muted 15:45:36 <MacTed> +1 stevebattle 15:45:42 <Zakim> +??P81 15:45:48 <oberger> topic: LDP Specification 15:46:44 <SteveS> ISSUE-25 15:46:55 <deiu> ISSUE-25? 15:46:55 <trackbot> ISSUE-25 -- Weak aggregation and strong composition in containers -- closed 15:46:55 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/25 <deiu> Steves: sent email to the list on what changes will be made to the spec with regard to issue-25 <deiu> ... will now proceed to updating the spec 15:47:30 <stevebattle> Do we have a process for closing issues? 15:47:30 <deiu> Arnaud: we need to start closing issues 15:47:30 <oberger> topic: Open Issues 15:47:35 <MacTed> Zakim, unmute me 15:47:35 <Zakim> MacTed should no longer be muted 15:47:59 <deiu> MacTed: member submission was not focused on use cases 15:48:31 <stevebattle> q+ 15:48:41 <Arnaud> ack steveb 15:48:42 <deiu> ... the process we're following here is bound to create a lot of issues 15:48:56 <deiu> stevebattle: do we have a process for closing issues? (see f2f style) 15:48:57 <cygri> q+ 15:49:02 <SteveS> q+ 15:49:09 <deiu> ... it would be good to have a process 15:49:24 <Zakim> -??P81 15:49:31 <deiu> Arnaud: ideally the process is to use this teleconf, going through the issues one by one 15:49:33 <oberger> when/if we stop filling new ones, the call will deal with closing them hopefully 15:49:45 <Zakim> +??P41 15:49:46 <Zakim> -ericP 15:49:53 <deiu> ... it's not easy to close issues on the mailing list 15:50:10 <cygri> q? 15:50:13 <deiu> ... if we get close to closing the issues on the mailing list, we can officially close them during calls 15:50:18 <Arnaud> ack cygri 15:50:50 <deiu> cygri: from my experience, I find this can be helpful for closing issues to have properly formulated proposal sent by email before calls 15:50:59 <bblfish> +1 15:51:04 <deiu> ... they become the baseline for discussions during the calls 15:51:12 <AshokMalhotra> +1 to wording change proposals for issues 15:51:19 <Arnaud> ack steves 15:52:02 <deiu> SteveS: we can plan the agenda to avoid pushing this process towards the end of the call 15:52:47 <deiu> Arnaud: when we started, we decided to allow the people who opened the issues to decide how they want to close them 15:52:49 <bblfish> perhaps also in e-mail people who send a mail that contains a soluton should put it in the header 15:52:52 <stevebattle> q+ 15:53:06 <deiu> ... when people care about an issue, they should make concrete proposals and highlight them on the mailing list 15:53:21 <AndyS> Not sure a new issue can always have a proposed resolution at this stage -- e..g the overall design issue. 15:53:24 <Zakim> -??P41 15:53:24 <deiu> ... if it's a small issue, we can leave it open for discussion 15:53:29 <Arnaud> ack stevebattle 15:53:45 <Zakim> +??P41 15:53:51 <deiu> stevebattle: I agree with cygri; the resolution text will be different from the proposal text 15:53:54 <AndyS> Only as we get a more complete set of docs does the requirement of resolution work. 15:53:58 <cygri> q+ 15:54:11 <Arnaud> ack cygri 15:54:47 <deiu> cygri: I want to agree with that; you will notice that people care about it and they will eventually write up a concrete proposal for closing the issue 15:55:00 <deiu> ... if I don't propose a solution, someone else will do it 15:55:38 <oberger> 5 mins left :-/ 15:55:45 <deiu> Arnaud: is there an issue someone wants to discuss at this point? 15:56:01 <bblfish> I wanted to know if the RDF people agreed with the notion that a form is like a query 15:56:03 <AndyS> actions for the overall design text? 15:56:16 <stevebattle> I'm not hearing anything on the phone - ah I've been disconnected. 15:56:16 <bblfish> and how one can get ahead with doing forms in rdf 15:56:37 <cygri> ISSUE-37? 15:56:37 <trackbot> ISSUE-37 -- What is the LDP data model and the LDP interaction model? -- open 15:56:37 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/37 15:56:44 <deiu> AndyS: there was an issue about the overall design text 15:57:07 <bblfish> AndyS: how does one make a model? 15:57:14 <dret> proposal is to use email 127 as starting point, and take it from there. 15:57:17 <bblfish> q+ 15:57:23 <bblfish> ow does one make a model? 15:57:25 <Zakim> -??P41 #15:57:28 <Zakim> +SteveBattle.a 15:57:29 <Arnaud> ack bblfish 15:57:37 <stevebattle> it was me 15:57:39 <bblfish> how does one make a model? 15:57:56 <deiu> bblfish, just talk, I'll try to scribe 15:58:12 <AndyS> dret -- record an action? 15:58:19 <deiu> bblfish: is there a notion about how to make an interaction model? 15:58:20 <JohnArwe> we use interaction diagrams 15:58:22 <Zakim> +??P54 15:58:52 <deiu> AndyS: there is no formal language for it, it's about agreement 15:59:32 <deiu> ... I would volunteer to create that section of the spec; my expectation is to make it short (1-2 pages), add statements about how clients are supposed to interact with them 15:59:34 <bblfish> that sounds nearly like the spec. 15:59:44 <bblfish> q+ 15:59:54 <Arnaud> ack bblfish 16:00:11 <Zakim> -Ashok_Malhotra 16:00:11 <bblfish> should I open an issue? 16:00:14 <deiu> bblfish: was there anything mentioned about RDF and forms? 16:00:37 <deiu> Arnaud: if you think that's a valid issue, then you may create one 16:00:53 <deiu> ... it has to be related to the spec, and to identify what the real problem is 16:01:08 <deiu> bblfish: it's about getting "views" of a collection: page 1, 2, etc. 16:01:25 <Zakim> -??P54 16:02:07 <deiu> Arnaud: people need to make concrete proposals on the mailing list first, to make a better use of teleconf time 16:02:14 <cygri> bblfish, i don't think there's an open issue for RDF forms. there's an issue for pagination. 16:02:24 <oberger> giving thanks to you 16:02:25 <SteveS> suggest we actually assign owners to each issue, I'll grab some that I'm interested 16:02:26 <dret> thanks, arnaud! 16:02:28 <stevebattle> bye 16:02:31 <bblfish> yes, I was thinking of using forms for pagination cygri 16:02:33 <Zakim> -rogerm 16:02:34 <ghard> Bye 16:02:34 <Zakim> -SteveS 16:02:34 <Zakim> -MHausenblas 16:02:36 <Zakim> -Yves 16:02:36 <Zakim> -oberger 16:02:36 <rgarcia> bye 16:02:37 <deiu> Arnaud: MEETING ADJOURNED 16:02:38 <Zakim> -MacTed 16:02:38 <antonis> bye 16:02:39 <Zakim> -AndyS 16:02:40 <Zakim> -JohnArwe 16:02:42 <Zakim> -Kalpa 16:02:42 <Zakim> -bblfish 16:02:42 <Zakim> -Arnaud #16:02:43 <Zakim> -SteveBattle.a 16:02:43 <Zakim> -raul 16:02:44 <Zakim> -antonis 16:02:44 <Zakim> -dret 16:02:49 <Zakim> -ghard 16:03:01 <deiu> RRSAgent, draft minutes 16:03:01 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/11/19-ldp-minutes.html deiu 16:03:11 <deiu> RRSAgent, make minutes public 16:03:11 <RRSAgent> I'm logging. I don't understand 'make minutes public', deiu. Try /msg RRSAgent help 16:03:21 <deiu> RRSAgent, make log public 16:03:21 <bblfish> I proposed using SPARQL for forms 16:03:36 <Zakim> -deiu 16:03:51 <bblfish> but that was just a high level way of doing things 16:04:22 <dret> unfortunately, there's no concept of "issue ownership" in our tracker, afaict. that would be useful and pretty much all trackers have it, just not ours... 16:04:46 <deiu> bblfish, from my perspective (implementing LDP), I see all collections as SPARQL endpoints 16:05:25 <deiu> I wonder if that makes any sense 16:05:40 <dret> the implementation may use a SPARQL, but the interactions are limited to whatever the service surface makes available as interactions. 16:06:37 <deiu> it doesn't have to be a real (public) endpoint, though it can pass requests to the local (main) endpoint 16:06:51 <dret> if we say an LDP service *is a SPARQL endpoint*, then we're just doing GSP, aren't we? 16:07:03 <deiu> I'm not saying that :-) 16:07:08 <dret> good ;-) 16:07:21 <deiu> I'm saying that from an implementation p.o.v. it makes sense 16:07:21 <Zakim> -nmihindu 16:07:27 <AndyS> Another (not the only) view is the whole server is one SPARQL endpoint. Both can be made to work. 16:08:46 <bblfish> deiu: the forms are not for the server, but for the client 16:09:00 <bblfish> they are ways for the server to specify a way for the client to answer questions 16:09:32 <dret> we're doijng what pretty much every web-facing service on earth does: we're accepting requests where, let's say, URI parameters represent the specific way in which clients ask for service (give me page 42 and 42 entries per page: ...?pagesize=42&page=42), and the the implementation maps this service surface to whatever it uses as its implementation, retrieves the required data from its backend, and then generates whatever representation is required by the s[CUT] 16:09:34 <SteveS> dret, right I'd say that SPARQL is not required but one a possible implementation of LDP 16:10:22 <dret> no suprises here at all, standard web engineering, just against a RDF back-end, and with an RDF service surface (which is the tricky part, because of the links). 16:11:32 <dret> +1 to SteveS 16:12:21 <Zakim> disconnecting the lone participant, SteveBattle, in SW_LDP()10:00AM 16:12:23 <Zakim> SW_LDP()10:00AM has ended 16:12:23 <Zakim> Attendees were SteveBattle, MacTed, SteveS, Arnaud, deiu, JohnArwe, Ashok_Malhotra, dret, ericP, oberger, Yves, raul, MHausenblas, nmihindu, cygri, ghard, +44.208.573.aabb, krp, 16:12:23 <Zakim> ... antonis, bblfish, AndyS, rogerm, Kalpa, krp_ 16:13:23 <AndyS> AndyS has left #ldp 16:54:07 <gavinc> gavinc has joined #ldp 17:00:45 <SteveS_> SteveS_ has joined #ldp 17:46:27 <SteveS> SteveS has joined #ldp 17:46:45 <SteveS> SteveS has joined #ldp 18:14:53 <Zakim> Zakim has left #ldp 18:23:08 <cgueret> cgueret has joined #ldp # SPECIAL MARKER FOR CHATSYNC. DO NOT EDIT THIS LINE OR BELOW. SRCLINESUSED=00000465