Difference between revisions of "Chatlog 2013-02-25"

From Linked Data Platform
Jump to: navigation, search
m (369 lines added by chatsync)
 
Line 48: Line 48:
 
15:03:34 <nmihindu> nmihindu has joined #ldp
 
15:03:34 <nmihindu> nmihindu has joined #ldp
 
15:03:37 <dret> +1
 
15:03:37 <dret> +1
15:03:46 <svillata> Topic: approving minutes Feb 18
+
15:03:46 <svillata> Topic: Approving minutes Feb 18
15:03:54 <svillata> approved
+
15:03:54 <svillata> Resolved: Minutes of Feb 18 approved
 
15:04:05 <SteveS> SteveS has joined #ldp
 
15:04:05 <SteveS> SteveS has joined #ldp
 
15:04:11 <Zakim> +[IBM]
 
15:04:11 <Zakim> +[IBM]
Line 62: Line 62:
 
15:05:08 <stevebattle> ..on the monday before the F2F
 
15:05:08 <stevebattle> ..on the monday before the F2F
 
15:05:09 <svillata> Arnaud: indicate your participation to F2F meeting
 
15:05:09 <svillata> Arnaud: indicate your participation to F2F meeting
15:05:53 <svillata> Topic: ISSUE-47
+
<svillata> Topic: Tracking of issues and actions
 +
15:05:53 <svillata> subtopic: ISSUE-47 is pending review
 
15:05:56 <bblfish> Issue-47?
 
15:05:56 <bblfish> Issue-47?
 
15:05:56 <trackbot> ISSUE-47 -- publish ontology -- pending review
 
15:05:56 <trackbot> ISSUE-47 -- publish ontology -- pending review
Line 79: Line 80:
 
15:07:59 <Arnaud> ack stevebattle
 
15:07:59 <Arnaud> ack stevebattle
 
15:08:11 <cody> Should it not have a date pattern in the URL like most W3C published schemas? How to handle new versions?
 
15:08:11 <cody> Should it not have a date pattern in the URL like most W3C published schemas? How to handle new versions?
15:08:21 <svillata> close ISSUE-47
+
<svillata> stevebattle: afraid publishing the ontology as linked data with hyperlinked classnames etc is overkilling
15:08:21 <trackbot> Closed ISSUE-47 publish ontology.
+
 
15:08:23 <JohnArwe> arnaud: we now have a turtle document in the cvs ... that seems like linked data "enough"
 
15:08:23 <JohnArwe> arnaud: we now have a turtle document in the cvs ... that seems like linked data "enough"
 
15:08:53 <JohnArwe> ...expect editors to update ontology based on future resolutions of issues
 
15:08:53 <JohnArwe> ...expect editors to update ontology based on future resolutions of issues
 
15:09:07 <TallTed> cody - those date patterns are associated with the start of the WGs, not the schemas
 
15:09:07 <TallTed> cody - those date patterns are associated with the start of the WGs, not the schemas
 +
15:08:21 <svillata> Resolved: Close ISSUE-47
 +
15:08:21 <trackbot> Closed ISSUE-47 publish ontology.
 
15:09:13 <svillata> Topic: LDP specification and publishing a second draft
 
15:09:13 <svillata> Topic: LDP specification and publishing a second draft
 
15:09:39 <cody> thx
 
15:09:39 <cody> thx
 
15:09:43 <roger> roger has joined #ldp
 
15:09:43 <roger> roger has joined #ldp
15:10:07 <svillata> Arnaud: we have to discuss what we think we need to do for p[ublishing the second draft
+
15:10:07 <svillata> Arnaud: we have to discuss what we think we need to do for publishing the second draft
 
15:10:21 <TallTed> TallTed has changed the topic to: Linked Data Platform WG -- http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/ -- current agenda: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2013.02.25
 
15:10:21 <TallTed> TallTed has changed the topic to: Linked Data Platform WG -- http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/ -- current agenda: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2013.02.25
 
15:10:30 <JohnArwe> q+
 
15:10:30 <JohnArwe> q+
Line 99: Line 101:
 
15:11:56 <Zakim> +krp; got it
 
15:11:56 <Zakim> +krp; got it
 
15:12:07 <Zakim> +??P31
 
15:12:07 <Zakim> +??P31
15:12:17 <svillata> Arnaud: effort to link from the spec the issues
+
15:12:17 <svillata> Arnaud: how are we doing with regard to linking all the issues from the spec?
 +
<svillata> steves: as of last week the spec was up to date so that shouldn't be a problem
 
15:13:19 <dret> dret has joined #LDP
 
15:13:19 <dret> dret has joined #LDP
 
15:13:46 <Zakim> -??P31
 
15:13:46 <Zakim> -??P31
Line 115: Line 118:
 
15:15:20 <Arnaud> ack steve
 
15:15:20 <Arnaud> ack steve
 
15:17:17 <svillata> Arnaud: maybe next week spec will be in a good shape, and we can decide then whether to publish it
 
15:17:17 <svillata> Arnaud: maybe next week spec will be in a good shape, and we can decide then whether to publish it
15:18:55 <svillata> which issue are we discussing?
+
#15:18:55 <svillata> which issue are we discussing?
15:19:34 <svillata> ok, thanks
+
#15:19:34 <svillata> ok, thanks
 
15:19:44 <stevebattle> q+
 
15:19:44 <stevebattle> q+
15:20:29 <svillata> Topic: composition (related to ISSUE-34)
+
<svillata> Topic: Open Issues
15:20:59 <Zakim> +Sandro.a
+
15:20:29 <svillata> subtopic: Composition vs Aggregation ontology (related to ISSUE-34)
15:21:03 <svillata> JohnArwe: the ontology itself is subjet to change
+
#15:20:59 <Zakim> +Sandro.a
 +
15:21:03 <svillata> JohnArwe: the ontology itself is subject to change
 
15:21:06 <Zakim> -Sandro
 
15:21:06 <Zakim> -Sandro
 
15:21:11 <SteveS> Think this is more narrowly issue-32 and somewhat a part of it
 
15:21:11 <SteveS> Think this is more narrowly issue-32 and somewhat a part of it
Line 149: Line 153:
 
15:29:50 <JohnArwe> SteveB: as long as real behavioral difference, happy to have different classes in ontology
 
15:29:50 <JohnArwe> SteveB: as long as real behavioral difference, happy to have different classes in ontology
 
15:29:52 <SteveS> roger: I believe cygri opened on behalf of us at F2F1…but would be good to get feedback, not arguing that
 
15:29:52 <SteveS> roger: I believe cygri opened on behalf of us at F2F1…but would be good to get feedback, not arguing that
15:30:56 <svillata> Proposal: adopting ontology proposed by JohnArwe (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2013Feb/0115.html)
+
15:30:56 <svillata> Proposed: adopting ontology proposed by JohnArwe (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2013Feb/0115.html)
 
15:30:57 <Zakim> +bblfish
 
15:30:57 <Zakim> +bblfish
 
15:31:06 <stevebattle> +1
 
15:31:06 <stevebattle> +1
Line 155: Line 159:
 
15:31:24 <SteveS> +1
 
15:31:24 <SteveS> +1
 
15:32:06 <stevebattle> No - they have different deletion behaviour.
 
15:32:06 <stevebattle> No - they have different deletion behaviour.
15:32:21 <svillata> cygri: no idea of what the difference is
+
15:32:21 <svillata> cygri: reading the ontology I have no idea of what the difference is
 
15:32:52 <JohnArwe> @cygri: the example in the email ontology is (as resolved in 34) currently the only difference between them.
 
15:32:52 <JohnArwe> @cygri: the example in the email ontology is (as resolved in 34) currently the only difference between them.
 
15:32:52 <TallTed> I'd suggest changing :Aggregation to :aggregateContainer and :Composition to :compositeContainer
 
15:32:52 <TallTed> I'd suggest changing :Aggregation to :aggregateContainer and :Composition to :compositeContainer
 
15:33:17 <stevebattle> That sounds a bit verbose to me.
 
15:33:17 <stevebattle> That sounds a bit verbose to me.
15:33:21 <svillata> Arnaud: when you delete the container, different behavious about the deletion of the resources it contains
+
15:33:21 <svillata> Arnaud: when you delete the container, different behaviors about the deletion of the resources it contains
 
15:33:27 <stevebattle> It's going to be used a lot
 
15:33:27 <stevebattle> It's going to be used a lot
 
15:33:41 <TallTed> but otherwise I'm OK with the suggested change *as a start* ...  I agree with cygri that the specific differences in behavior must be explicitly noted.
 
15:33:41 <TallTed> but otherwise I'm OK with the suggested change *as a start* ...  I agree with cygri that the specific differences in behavior must be explicitly noted.
Line 167: Line 171:
 
15:35:19 <nmihindu> Zakim, ??P33 is me
 
15:35:19 <nmihindu> Zakim, ??P33 is me
 
15:35:19 <Zakim> +nmihindu; got it
 
15:35:19 <Zakim> +nmihindu; got it
15:35:33 <svillata> Arnaud: parent1 is aggregation and the subclass it the composition1
+
15:35:33 <svillata> Arnaud: think richard is suggesting parent is aggregation and the subclass is the composition
15:35:54 <bblfish> the question I would have is what happens when something is changed from an Aggreation to a Container, especially concerning the members.
+
15:35:54 <bblfish> the question I would have is what happens when something is changed from an Aggregation to a Container, especially concerning the members.
 
15:35:59 <svillata> cygri: members may continue to exist is not a constraint
 
15:35:59 <svillata> cygri: members may continue to exist is not a constraint
 
15:36:15 <svillata> ... it doen't commit the server
 
15:36:15 <svillata> ... it doen't commit the server
Line 182: Line 186:
 
15:37:17 <Arnaud> q?
 
15:37:17 <Arnaud> q?
 
15:37:19 <bblfish> please see above
 
15:37:19 <bblfish> please see above
15:37:23 <bblfish> the question I would have is what happens when something is changed from an Aggreation to a Container, especially concerning the members.
+
15:37:23 <bblfish> the question I would have is what happens when something is changed from an Aggregation to a Container, especially concerning the members.
 
15:37:45 <stevebattle> q+
 
15:37:45 <stevebattle> q+
 
15:38:08 <bblfish> ack me
 
15:38:08 <bblfish> ack me
Line 188: Line 192:
 
15:38:24 <Arnaud> ack TallTed
 
15:38:24 <Arnaud> ack TallTed
 
15:38:26 <roger> that (in my opinion) is a very dodgy thing
 
15:38:26 <roger> that (in my opinion) is a very dodgy thing
15:38:40 <svillata> SteveS: we can open and issue and address the question of bblfish
+
15:38:40 <svillata> SteveS: we can open an issue and address the question of bblfish
 
15:39:20 <svillata> q?
 
15:39:20 <svillata> q?
 
15:39:29 <bblfish> my guess is that this will only work if you add a :contains relation
 
15:39:29 <bblfish> my guess is that this will only work if you add a :contains relation
Line 196: Line 200:
 
15:40:12 <svillata> stevebattle: cygri's proposal appealing
 
15:40:12 <svillata> stevebattle: cygri's proposal appealing
 
15:40:23 <JohnArwe> s/Ted:/Question for Ted:/
 
15:40:23 <JohnArwe> s/Ted:/Question for Ted:/
15:40:54 <svillata> Arnaud: changing containers to something else change the spec quite a lot
+
15:40:54 <svillata> Arnaud: changing container to something else change the spec quite a lot, John's proposal is trying to minimize the change
 
15:41:05 <stevebattle> In OOD, composition is not (typically) a subclass of aggregation. They're commonly subclasses of association.
 
15:41:05 <stevebattle> In OOD, composition is not (typically) a subclass of aggregation. They're commonly subclasses of association.
 
15:41:16 <Arnaud> q?
 
15:41:16 <Arnaud> q?
Line 202: Line 206:
 
15:42:00 <svillata> q?
 
15:42:00 <svillata> q?
 
15:42:18 <stevebattle> Isn't Container an abstract superclass that is useful for property definitions?
 
15:42:18 <stevebattle> Isn't Container an abstract superclass that is useful for property definitions?
15:42:28 <Zakim> +Sandro.aa
+
#15:42:28 <Zakim> +Sandro.aa
15:42:32 <Zakim> -Sandro.a
+
#15:42:32 <Zakim> -Sandro.a
 
15:42:46 <svillata> TallTed: propose to use aggregate containers and composite containers
 
15:42:46 <svillata> TallTed: propose to use aggregate containers and composite containers
 
15:43:07 <svillata> ... superclass Container
 
15:43:07 <svillata> ... superclass Container
Line 214: Line 218:
 
15:43:44 <Arnaud> ack sandro
 
15:43:44 <Arnaud> ack sandro
 
15:43:44 <Zakim> sandro, you wanted to ask a naive question (can't we just use URLs?)
 
15:43:44 <Zakim> sandro, you wanted to ask a naive question (can't we just use URLs?)
 +
<svillata> sandro: after weeks of discussion we still don't seem to have a resolution, so why not instead rely on the structure of the URLs to determine whether member resources should be deleted or not?
 
15:44:25 <stevebattle> I proposed that at the last F2F and got voted down :)
 
15:44:25 <stevebattle> I proposed that at the last F2F and got voted down :)
 
15:44:28 <bblfish> I think it is an interesting idea
 
15:44:28 <bblfish> I think it is an interesting idea
 
15:44:31 <Arnaud> ack steves
 
15:44:31 <Arnaud> ack steves
 +
<svillata> steves: this would go against the opacity principle
 
15:44:51 <bblfish> I was going to propose that urls ending in / are LDPCs
 
15:44:51 <bblfish> I was going to propose that urls ending in / are LDPCs
 
15:45:09 <Ruben> mmm, I don't like "urls ending in"
 
15:45:09 <Ruben> mmm, I don't like "urls ending in"
Line 225: Line 231:
 
15:46:14 <bblfish> s/emantics/semantics/
 
15:46:14 <bblfish> s/emantics/semantics/
 
15:46:22 <Arnaud> ack cygri
 
15:46:22 <Arnaud> ack cygri
15:46:44 <svillata> cygri: one issue was the idea of using the url structure to indicate composition
+
15:46:44 <svillata> cygri: think one issue that was discussed at F2F1 and that led us to where we are was the idea of using the url structure to indicate composition
 
15:47:22 <svillata> ... can't give any special semantics to the relations to keep the implementation really simple
 
15:47:22 <svillata> ... can't give any special semantics to the relations to keep the implementation really simple
 
15:47:56 <stevebattle> q+
 
15:47:56 <stevebattle> q+
Line 236: Line 242:
 
15:49:52 <sandro> q+
 
15:49:52 <sandro> q+
 
15:50:02 <SteveS> q+
 
15:50:02 <SteveS> q+
15:50:14 <svillata> Arnaud: better to re-open issues when new information comes
+
15:50:14 <svillata> Arnaud: possible but better to re-open issues when new information comes
15:50:14 <bblfish> stevebattle: I have an idea on how to do this in a way that is uncontrovsial
+
15:50:14 <bblfish> stevebattle: I have an idea on how to do this in a way that is uncontroversial
 
15:50:19 <Arnaud> ack sandro
 
15:50:19 <Arnaud> ack sandro
 
15:50:19 <sandro> q-
 
15:50:19 <sandro> q-
Line 248: Line 254:
 
15:51:53 <JohnArwe> I think Sandro was proposing that "if the URL is structured ..., then the client Knows the behavior is delete (or not) members."
 
15:51:53 <JohnArwe> I think Sandro was proposing that "if the URL is structured ..., then the client Knows the behavior is delete (or not) members."
 
15:52:07 <SteveS> I think we are arguing over minor details of class hierarchy and not fundamental behavioral difference
 
15:52:07 <SteveS> I think we are arguing over minor details of class hierarchy and not fundamental behavioral difference
15:52:09 <bblfish> sandro, we can should get together on this.
+
15:52:09 <bblfish> sandro, we should get together on this.
 
15:52:19 <sandro> yes, JohnArwe
 
15:52:19 <sandro> yes, JohnArwe
 
15:52:23 <SteveS> s/difference/differences/
 
15:52:23 <SteveS> s/difference/differences/
Line 255: Line 261:
 
15:52:50 <sandro> in fact -- I probably shouldn't be in the lead or critical path for this
 
15:52:50 <sandro> in fact -- I probably shouldn't be in the lead or critical path for this
 
15:53:07 <stevebattle> +0 (not convinced about the long names)
 
15:53:07 <stevebattle> +0 (not convinced about the long names)
15:53:18 <svillata> Arnaud: how do we feel with TallTed proposal's?
+
15:53:18 <svillata> Arnaud: how do we feel with TallTed's proposal?
 
15:53:20 <TallTed> +1
 
15:53:20 <TallTed> +1
 
15:53:21 <JohnArwe> When we talk about URL structures yielding client assumptions, we'd be making it harder for any existing implementations to comply.
 
15:53:21 <JohnArwe> When we talk about URL structures yielding client assumptions, we'd be making it harder for any existing implementations to comply.
Line 269: Line 275:
 
15:54:39 <svillata> Arnaud: we don't seem to have consensus
 
15:54:39 <svillata> Arnaud: we don't seem to have consensus
 
15:54:56 <dret> +/-0
 
15:54:56 <dret> +/-0
 +
<svillata> TallTed: I think we do, nobody has voted against it
 
15:54:59 <Zakim> -bblfish
 
15:54:59 <Zakim> -bblfish
 
15:55:17 <svillata> Arnaud: JohnArwe proposal?
 
15:55:17 <svillata> Arnaud: JohnArwe proposal?
Line 275: Line 282:
 
15:56:56 <svillata> TallTed: what do you mean stevebattle as using namespaces for disambiguation?
 
15:56:56 <svillata> TallTed: what do you mean stevebattle as using namespaces for disambiguation?
 
15:57:24 <stevebattle> yez
 
15:57:24 <stevebattle> yez
15:57:49 <svillata> Proposal: go with the proposal by TallTed
 
 
15:57:52 <stevebattle> s/z/s/
 
15:57:52 <stevebattle> s/z/s/
15:57:59 <svillata> sorry
+
15:58:56 <Arnaud> resolved: Go with John's proposal amended by Ted
15:58:21 <svillata> Topic: LDP model section
+
15:58:21 <svillata> subTopic: LDP model section
15:58:56 <Arnaud> resolved: go with John's proposal amended by Ted
+
 
16:00:59 <svillata> Arnaud: maybe we should leave to the editors to choose among the two proposals
 
16:00:59 <svillata> Arnaud: maybe we should leave to the editors to choose among the two proposals
 
16:01:23 <Zakim> -cygri
 
16:01:23 <Zakim> -cygri
Line 295: Line 300:
 
16:04:41 <svillata> ACTION: dret to create complete section
 
16:04:41 <svillata> ACTION: dret to create complete section
 
16:04:41 <trackbot> Created ACTION-38 - Create complete section [on Erik Wilde - due 2013-03-04].
 
16:04:41 <trackbot> Created ACTION-38 - Create complete section [on Erik Wilde - due 2013-03-04].
 +
<svillata> Arnaud: Meeting adjourned
 
16:04:43 <Zakim> -roger
 
16:04:43 <Zakim> -roger
 
16:04:45 <stevebattle> Thanks, bye.
 
16:04:45 <stevebattle> Thanks, bye.
Line 302: Line 308:
 
16:04:53 <Zakim> -SteveBattle
 
16:04:53 <Zakim> -SteveBattle
 
16:04:54 <Zakim> -Arnaud
 
16:04:54 <Zakim> -Arnaud
16:04:54 <Zakim> -Sandro.aa
+
#16:04:54 <Zakim> -Sandro.aa
 
16:04:56 <Zakim> -svillata
 
16:04:56 <Zakim> -svillata
 
16:04:56 <Zakim> -dret
 
16:04:56 <Zakim> -dret
Line 311: Line 317:
 
16:05:17 <Ruben> Ruben has left #ldp
 
16:05:17 <Ruben> Ruben has left #ldp
 
16:05:20 <JohnArwe> what's your q cody?
 
16:05:20 <JohnArwe> what's your q cody?
16:05:31 <Zakim> -nmihindu.a
+
#16:05:31 <Zakim> -nmihindu.a
 
16:05:34 <cody> The line opens at 2:00 AM - 12:00 PM Boston time.
 
16:05:34 <cody> The line opens at 2:00 AM - 12:00 PM Boston time.
 
16:05:44 <cody> Is this because of overseas participation?
 
16:05:44 <cody> Is this because of overseas participation?

Revision as of 18:58, 25 February 2013

See original RRSAgent log or preview nicely formatted version.

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

14:58:37 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #ldp
14:58:37 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/02/25-ldp-irc
14:58:39 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
14:58:39 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #ldp
14:58:41 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be LDP
14:58:41 <Zakim> ok, trackbot, I see SW_LDP()10:00AM already started
14:58:42 <trackbot> Meeting: Linked Data Platform (LDP) Working Group Teleconference
14:58:42 <trackbot> Date: 25 February 2013
14:59:03 <Zakim> +JohnArwe
14:59:26 <Zakim> +cygri
14:59:27 <Zakim> + +1.214.537.aaaa
14:59:33 <Zakim> +SteveBattle
15:00:00 <Zakim> +Arnaud
15:00:21 <Arnaud> zakim, who's here?
15:00:22 <Zakim> On the phone I see [IPcaller], JohnArwe, cygri, +1.214.537.aaaa, SteveBattle, Arnaud
15:00:22 <Zakim> On IRC I see RRSAgent, JohnArwe, Arnaud, svillata, TallTed, jmvanel, cody, Ruben, dret, SteveS, betehess, bhyland, bblfish, stevebattle, oberger, Yves, trackbot, sandro, ericP
15:00:23 <Zakim> +??P24
15:00:29 <dret> zakim, IPcaller is me
15:00:30 <Zakim> +dret; got it
15:00:31 <Zakim> +[OpenLink]
15:00:35 <cody> (1 214 537.aaaa is Cody, who hasn't learned to change Zakim's prompt from phone # to name)
15:00:38 <svillata> Zakim, ??P24 is me
15:00:38 <Zakim> +svillata; got it
15:00:43 <TallTed> Zakim, [OpenLink] is OpenLink_Software
15:00:43 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software; got it
15:00:47 <TallTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
15:00:47 <Zakim> +TallTed; got it
15:00:49 <TallTed> Zakim, mute me
15:00:49 <Zakim> TallTed should now be muted
15:01:21 <Zakim> +bblfish
15:01:35 <Kalpa> Kalpa has joined #ldp
15:01:43 <bblfish> hi, in train from Paris to Amsterdam
15:02:23 <Kalpa> Kalpa has left #ldp
15:02:23 <Arnaud> zakim, who's here?
15:02:24 <Zakim> On the phone I see dret, JohnArwe, cygri, +1.214.537.aaaa, SteveBattle, Arnaud, svillata, TallTed (muted), bblfish
15:02:25 <Zakim> On IRC I see RRSAgent, JohnArwe, Arnaud, svillata, TallTed, jmvanel, cody, Ruben, dret, SteveS, betehess, bhyland, bblfish, stevebattle, oberger, Yves, trackbot, sandro, ericP
15:02:30 <JohnArwe> zakim, aaaa is cody
15:02:30 <Zakim> +cody; got it
15:02:35 <bblfish> afternoon!
15:02:59 <Arnaud> chair: Arnaud
15:03:07 <Arnaud> scribe: svillata
15:03:08 <svillata> scribe: svillata
15:03:15 <bblfish> svillata: you can use this: http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/Scribing.html
15:03:16 <Kalpa> Kalpa has joined #ldp
15:03:28 <svillata> thanks bblfish
15:03:34 <nmihindu> nmihindu has joined #ldp
15:03:37 <dret> +1
15:03:46 <svillata> Topic: Approving minutes Feb 18
15:03:54 <svillata> Resolved: Minutes of Feb 18 approved
15:04:05 <SteveS> SteveS has joined #ldp
15:04:11 <Zakim> +[IBM]
15:04:12 <Kalpa> zakim, who is on the phone
15:04:12 <Zakim> I don't understand 'who is on the phone', Kalpa
15:04:27 <SteveS> zakim, [IBM] is me
15:04:27 <Zakim> +SteveS; got it
15:04:28 <JohnArwe> zakim, who is on the phone?
15:04:28 <Zakim> On the phone I see dret, JohnArwe, cygri, cody, SteveBattle, Arnaud, svillata, TallTed (muted), bblfish, SteveS
15:04:32 <svillata> Arnaud: F2F is coming up
15:04:37 <stevebattle> I'll be travelling
15:05:08 <stevebattle> ..on the monday before the F2F
15:05:09 <svillata> Arnaud: indicate your participation to F2F meeting
<svillata> Topic: Tracking of issues and actions
15:05:53 <svillata> subtopic: ISSUE-47 is pending review
15:05:56 <bblfish> Issue-47?
15:05:56 <trackbot> ISSUE-47 -- publish ontology -- pending review
15:05:56 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/47
15:06:07 <Zakim> +??P31
15:06:33 <krp> krp has joined #ldp
15:06:44 <nmihindu> Zakim, ??P31 is me
15:06:44 <Zakim> +nmihindu; got it
15:06:48 <svillata> Arnaud: do we want to close ISSUE-47?
15:06:53 <stevebattle> q+
15:06:55 <Zakim> -bblfish
15:07:00 <svillata> q?
15:07:13 <bblfish> makes sense to close it if the actions are taken. ( I can't hear much breaks up a lot in the train )
15:07:15 <Zakim> +roger
15:07:31 <Zakim> +Sandro
15:07:59 <Arnaud> ack stevebattle
15:08:11 <cody> Should it not have a date pattern in the URL like most W3C published schemas? How to handle new versions?
<svillata> stevebattle: afraid publishing the ontology as linked data with hyperlinked classnames etc is overkilling
15:08:23 <JohnArwe> arnaud: we now have a turtle document in the cvs ... that seems like linked data "enough"
15:08:53 <JohnArwe> ...expect editors to update ontology based on future resolutions of issues
15:09:07 <TallTed> cody - those date patterns are associated with the start of the WGs, not the schemas
15:08:21 <svillata> Resolved: Close ISSUE-47
15:08:21 <trackbot> Closed ISSUE-47 publish ontology.
15:09:13 <svillata> Topic: LDP specification and publishing a second draft
15:09:39 <cody> thx
15:09:43 <roger> roger has joined #ldp
15:10:07 <svillata> Arnaud: we have to discuss what we think we need to do for publishing the second draft
15:10:21 <TallTed> TallTed has changed the topic to: Linked Data Platform WG -- http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/ -- current agenda: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2013.02.25
15:10:30 <JohnArwe> q+
15:10:31 <svillata> ... what do the editors need to publish a second draft?
15:10:41 <svillata> q?
15:11:07 <Kalpa> Kalpa has joined #ldp
15:11:24 <svillata> SteveS: pretty good shape wrt the resolved issues
15:11:39 <Zakim> -nmihindu
15:11:41 <Zakim> +??P29
15:11:56 <krp> zakim, ??P29 is me
15:11:56 <Zakim> +krp; got it
15:12:07 <Zakim> +??P31
15:12:17 <svillata> Arnaud: how are we doing with regard to linking all the issues from the spec?
<svillata> steves: as of last week the spec was up to date so that shouldn't be a problem
15:13:19 <dret> dret has joined #LDP
15:13:46 <Zakim> -??P31
15:13:50 <bblfish> concerning draft is the relative urls resolved?
15:14:09 <svillata> Arnaud: would be good to have a week to review the spec?
15:14:13 <SteveS> bblfish: it is an open action, minor update we can do
15:14:16 <Zakim> +??P31
15:14:38 <stevebattle> I'm happy to be transparent and publish internally and externally simultaneously.
15:14:49 <svillata> ... start review, and for March 11 decide whether to publish it
15:15:05 <Arnaud> q?
15:15:12 <Arnaud> ack john
15:15:13 <SteveS> q+
15:15:17 <nmihindu> Zakim, ??P31 is me
15:15:17 <Zakim> +nmihindu; got it
15:15:20 <Arnaud> ack steve
15:17:17 <svillata> Arnaud: maybe next week spec will be in a good shape, and we can decide then whether to publish it
#15:18:55 <svillata> which issue are we discussing?
#15:19:34 <svillata> ok, thanks
15:19:44 <stevebattle> q+
<svillata> Topic: Open Issues
15:20:29 <svillata> subtopic: Composition vs Aggregation ontology (related to ISSUE-34)
#15:20:59 <Zakim> +Sandro.a
15:21:03 <svillata> JohnArwe: the ontology itself is subject to change
15:21:06 <Zakim> -Sandro
15:21:11 <SteveS> Think this is more narrowly issue-32 and somewhat a part of it
15:21:18 <Arnaud> ack stevebattle
15:21:59 <svillata> stevebattle: issue-34 brings to an ontology about aggregation and composition
15:22:30 <Zakim> -nmihindu
15:23:00 <Zakim> +??P28
15:23:21 <JohnArwe> ashok's email: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2013Feb/0014.html item 2
15:23:34 <nmihindu> Zakim, ??P28 is me
15:23:34 <Zakim> +nmihindu; got it
15:23:49 <svillata> Arnaud: proposal now is to have two subclasses for composition and aggregation
15:24:46 <svillata> ... container is a useful notion independently from aggregation/composition
15:25:03 <SteveS> q+
15:25:28 <svillata> ... we are discussing how many classes to define, which properties
15:25:29 <Arnaud> ack steves
15:26:19 <roger> q+
15:26:21 <stevebattle> q+
15:26:27 <Arnaud> ack roger
15:26:49 <svillata> ISSUE-34?
15:26:49 <trackbot> ISSUE-34 -- Adding and removing arcs in weak aggregation -- closed
15:26:49 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/34
15:27:07 <Arnaud> ack stevebattle
15:27:28 <svillata> stevebattle: important to make a distinction in the ontology
15:28:33 <cygri> cygri has joined #ldp
15:28:50 <Arnaud> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2013Feb/0115.html
15:29:09 <roger> It would be good to get feedback from Richard about issue 34 (because he originally raised the issue).
15:29:16 <svillata> Arnaud: email JohnArwe sent out on Friday with a proposal
15:29:50 <JohnArwe> SteveB: as long as real behavioral difference, happy to have different classes in ontology
15:29:52 <SteveS> roger: I believe cygri opened on behalf of us at F2F1…but would be good to get feedback, not arguing that
15:30:56 <svillata> Proposed: adopting ontology proposed by JohnArwe (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2013Feb/0115.html)
15:30:57 <Zakim> +bblfish
15:31:06 <stevebattle> +1
15:31:15 <bblfish> bblfish has joined #ldp
15:31:24 <SteveS> +1
15:32:06 <stevebattle> No - they have different deletion behaviour.
15:32:21 <svillata> cygri: reading the ontology I have no idea of what the difference is
15:32:52 <JohnArwe> @cygri: the example in the email ontology is (as resolved in 34) currently the only difference between them.
15:32:52 <TallTed> I'd suggest changing :Aggregation to :aggregateContainer and :Composition to :compositeContainer
15:33:17 <stevebattle> That sounds a bit verbose to me.
15:33:21 <svillata> Arnaud: when you delete the container, different behaviors about the deletion of the resources it contains
15:33:27 <stevebattle> It's going to be used a lot
15:33:41 <TallTed> but otherwise I'm OK with the suggested change *as a start* ...  I agree with cygri that the specific differences in behavior must be explicitly noted.
15:34:27 <Zakim> +??P33
15:34:52 <bblfish> back in new train
15:34:56 <svillata> cygri: having two subclasses which differ only for a sentence does not make sense, my feeling is that just using the super-class would be sufficient
15:35:19 <nmihindu> Zakim, ??P33 is me
15:35:19 <Zakim> +nmihindu; got it
15:35:33 <svillata> Arnaud: think richard is suggesting parent is aggregation and the subclass is the composition
15:35:54 <bblfish> the question I would have is what happens when something is changed from an Aggregation to a Container, especially concerning the members.
15:35:59 <svillata> cygri: members may continue to exist is not a constraint
15:36:15 <svillata> ... it doen't commit the server
15:36:20 <Arnaud> q?
15:36:22 <svillata> q?
15:36:25 <bblfish> q+
15:36:25 <TallTed> q+
15:36:31 <svillata> q?
15:36:34 <bblfish> please see my question above:
15:36:35 <TallTed> Zakim, unmute me
15:36:35 <Zakim> TallTed should no longer be muted
15:37:06 <svillata> Arnaud: how do we insert this aggregation concept?
15:37:17 <Arnaud> q?
15:37:19 <bblfish> please see above
15:37:23 <bblfish> the question I would have is what happens when something is changed from an Aggregation to a Container, especially concerning the members.
15:37:45 <stevebattle> q+
15:38:08 <bblfish> ack me
15:38:20 <JohnArwe> I don't know if we'd allow a change in container behavior dynamically... new conversation?
15:38:24 <Arnaud> ack TallTed
15:38:26 <roger> that (in my opinion) is a very dodgy thing
15:38:40 <svillata> SteveS: we can open an issue and address the question of bblfish
15:39:20 <svillata> q?
15:39:29 <bblfish> my guess is that this will only work if you add a :contains relation
15:39:48 <svillata> Arnaud: we have to make concrete proposals
15:39:50 <Arnaud> ack stevebattle
15:39:57 <JohnArwe> Ted: if (in the end) there is no behavioral difference between Container and AggregateContainer, would you like cygri want to collapse them?
15:40:12 <svillata> stevebattle: cygri's proposal appealing
15:40:23 <JohnArwe> s/Ted:/Question for Ted:/
15:40:54 <svillata> Arnaud: changing container to something else change the spec quite a lot, John's proposal is trying to minimize the change
15:41:05 <stevebattle> In OOD, composition is not (typically) a subclass of aggregation. They're commonly subclasses of association.
15:41:16 <Arnaud> q?
15:41:20 <svillata> s/change /changes
15:42:00 <svillata> q?
15:42:18 <stevebattle> Isn't Container an abstract superclass that is useful for property definitions?
#15:42:28 <Zakim> +Sandro.aa
#15:42:32 <Zakim> -Sandro.a
15:42:46 <svillata> TallTed: propose to use aggregate containers and composite containers
15:43:07 <svillata> ... superclass Container
15:43:17 <sandro> q+ to ask a naive question (can't we just use URLs?)
15:43:18 <SteveS> stevebattle: agree, we can multi-type if we even wanted to say it is a ldp:Container and a ldp:Aggregation
15:43:29 <SteveS> q+
15:43:33 <stevebattle> Yes - agreed that Aggregation and Composition are mutually exclusive classes.
15:43:35 <Arnaud> q?
15:43:44 <svillata> TallTed: proposal to change aggregation VS composition into aggregate containers/composite containers
15:43:44 <Arnaud> ack sandro
15:43:44 <Zakim> sandro, you wanted to ask a naive question (can't we just use URLs?)
<svillata> sandro: after weeks of discussion we still don't seem to have a resolution, so why not instead rely on the structure of the URLs to determine whether member resources should be deleted or not?
15:44:25 <stevebattle> I proposed that at the last F2F and got voted down :)
15:44:28 <bblfish> I think it is an interesting idea
15:44:31 <Arnaud> ack steves
<svillata> steves: this would go against the opacity principle
15:44:51 <bblfish> I was going to propose that urls ending in / are LDPCs
15:45:09 <Ruben> mmm, I don't like "urls ending in"
15:45:16 <Ruben> should be opaque
15:45:18 <bblfish> we spoke about this at the last F2F, but since then I have changed my mind.
15:46:02 <bblfish> Ruben, URLs are opaque as far as emantics goes, but in fact the URI spec does give / a special significance
15:46:09 <cygri> q+
15:46:14 <bblfish> s/emantics/semantics/
15:46:22 <Arnaud> ack cygri
15:46:44 <svillata> cygri: think one issue that was discussed at F2F1 and that led us to where we are was the idea of using the url structure to indicate composition
15:47:22 <svillata> ... can't give any special semantics to the relations to keep the implementation really simple
15:47:56 <stevebattle> q+
15:47:59 <sandro> I see that, but I don't find that compelling, giving the simplicity provided.
15:48:09 <svillata> q?
15:48:41 <Arnaud> ack stevebattle
15:49:26 <sandro> I probably voted against stevebattle at the F2F, but now that I see how long we've spent trying to figure this out, I lean more toward simplicity.
15:49:43 <bblfish> I can make a proposal
15:49:44 <svillata> stevebattle: is it possible to re-open the issue?
15:49:52 <sandro> q+
15:50:02 <SteveS> q+
15:50:14 <svillata> Arnaud: possible but better to re-open issues when new information comes
15:50:14 <bblfish> stevebattle: I have an idea on how to do this in a way that is uncontroversial
15:50:19 <Arnaud> ack sandro
15:50:19 <sandro> q-
15:50:26 <Arnaud> ack steves
15:50:28 <bblfish> ro was that Sandro
15:50:58 <stevebattle> An aggregate could generate URIs at the same level at the aggregation.
15:51:15 <sandro> sandro: I think it might be new information that this is so hard to us to figure out.
15:51:21 <stevebattle> They wouldn't be nested below the Aggregation
15:51:42 <stevebattle> ..In the URI structure
15:51:53 <JohnArwe> I think Sandro was proposing that "if the URL is structured ..., then the client Knows the behavior is delete (or not) members."
15:52:07 <SteveS> I think we are arguing over minor details of class hierarchy and not fundamental behavioral difference
15:52:09 <bblfish> sandro, we should get together on this.
15:52:19 <sandro> yes, JohnArwe
15:52:23 <SteveS> s/difference/differences/
15:52:39 <Arnaud> proposed: use John's proposed ontology with Aggregation renamed as AggregateContainer, Composition as CompositeContainer, and better documentation
15:52:45 <svillata> Arnaud: TallTed proposal from JohnArwe proposal
15:52:50 <sandro> in fact -- I probably shouldn't be in the lead or critical path for this
15:53:07 <stevebattle> +0 (not convinced about the long names)
15:53:18 <svillata> Arnaud: how do we feel with TallTed's proposal?
15:53:20 <TallTed> +1
15:53:21 <JohnArwe> When we talk about URL structures yielding client assumptions, we'd be making it harder for any existing implementations to comply.
15:53:30 <SteveS> +0 (I go back to my +1 for JohnArwe's proposal)
15:53:40 <roger> +0
15:53:48 <sandro> +0
15:53:51 <JohnArwe> +1 (rename things at will - I hate arguing over them, you'll win all the time )
15:53:59 <cody> +0
15:54:01 <svillata> +1
15:54:08 <cygri> -0 not convinced that aggregate is needed. ted's names are an improvement
15:54:23 <nmihindu> +0
15:54:36 <stevebattle> vote on the original proposal?
15:54:39 <svillata> Arnaud: we don't seem to have consensus
15:54:56 <dret> +/-0
<svillata> TallTed: I think we do, nobody has voted against it
15:54:59 <Zakim> -bblfish
15:55:17 <svillata> Arnaud: JohnArwe proposal?
15:55:49 <stevebattle> +1 (use namespaces for disambiguation)
15:56:52 <stevebattle> I prefer the shorter local names - we don't need to append 'Container'
15:56:56 <svillata> TallTed: what do you mean stevebattle as using namespaces for disambiguation?
15:57:24 <stevebattle> yez
15:57:52 <stevebattle> s/z/s/
15:58:56 <Arnaud> resolved: Go with John's proposal amended by Ted
15:58:21 <svillata> subTopic: LDP model section
16:00:59 <svillata> Arnaud: maybe we should leave to the editors to choose among the two proposals
16:01:23 <Zakim> -cygri
16:01:23 <Kalpa> Kalpa has left #ldp
16:01:30 <stevebattle> q+
16:01:39 <Arnaud> ack stevebattle
16:02:03 <svillata> stevebattle: the two proposals are materially the same, but I prefer Henry's proposal
16:02:22 <dret> yeah, that was just a proposal.
16:02:36 <svillata> Arnaud: do we have any text to put in the second draft of the spec?
16:02:38 <dret> no complete text yet, but i can take an action for that.
16:03:48 <SteveS> agree that editors can take the pen, using the feedback that is there now
16:03:55 <svillata> dret: we can write a complete section
16:04:12 <dret> in that case, can i have an action?
16:04:41 <Zakim> -SteveS
16:04:41 <svillata> ACTION: dret to create complete section
16:04:41 <trackbot> Created ACTION-38 - Create complete section [on Erik Wilde - due 2013-03-04].
<svillata> Arnaud: Meeting adjourned
16:04:43 <Zakim> -roger
16:04:45 <stevebattle> Thanks, bye.
16:04:49 <dret> thanks everybody!
16:04:52 <Zakim> -cody
16:04:53 <Zakim> -TallTed
16:04:53 <Zakim> -SteveBattle
16:04:54 <Zakim> -Arnaud
#16:04:54 <Zakim> -Sandro.aa
16:04:56 <Zakim> -svillata
16:04:56 <Zakim> -dret
16:04:56 <cody> One question
16:04:57 <Zakim> -krp
16:04:57 <Zakim> -JohnArwe
16:05:03 <cody> regarding the face to face coming up
16:05:17 <Ruben> Ruben has left #ldp
16:05:20 <JohnArwe> what's your q cody?
#16:05:31 <Zakim> -nmihindu.a
16:05:34 <cody> The line opens at 2:00 AM - 12:00 PM Boston time.
16:05:44 <cody> Is this because of overseas participation?
16:05:55 <cody> And is that the actual meeting start/end time?
16:06:02 <JohnArwe> probably - and probably copied from F2F1
16:06:34 <JohnArwe> ...when it was in France.  Usually they run 8 (or later) to 5 (or later) local time.
16:07:19 <cody> Just seems like a face to face hosted in the U.S. would require the overseas participants to join at the odd times.
16:07:26 <JohnArwe> Eric P one of the staff contacts made the arrangements - suggest email the list so he'll see your q and respond.
16:07:59 <cody> OK. Thx.
16:08:19 <JohnArwe> the assumption is most participants will be local, so local time is "it".  I can attest to the effect you describe (I was in NY during the Lyon F2F)
16:09:32 <JohnArwe> ...local time also tends to dictate when rooms can be booked, when meals are available (espec in a case like F2F2 when it appears there will be no sponsors so lunch is a "go out and get it" thing)
16:10:20 <cody> I still think I am confused. 2:00 AM to start a meeting in the U.S.?
16:10:31 <Zakim> disconnecting the lone participant, nmihindu, in SW_LDP()10:00AM
16:10:32 <Zakim> SW_LDP()10:00AM has ended
16:10:32 <Zakim> Attendees were JohnArwe, cygri, +1.214.537.aaaa, SteveBattle, Arnaud, dret, svillata, TallTed, bblfish, cody, SteveS, nmihindu, roger, Sandro, krp
16:10:43 <TallTed> TallTed has joined #ldp
16:11:07 <Arnaud> hmm, I wish I knew who was 1.214.537.aaaa
16:11:17 <cody> That is Cody
16:11:23 <Arnaud> ah, thanks
16:11:32 <cody> I do not know yet how to tell Zakim to use my name
16:11:39 <Arnaud> zakim is supposed to learn over time
16:12:00 <Arnaud> zakim, aaaa is cody
16:12:00 <Zakim> sorry, Arnaud, I do not recognize a party named 'aaaa'
16:12:15 <sandro> 214 537 is appears to be Richardson, TX
16:12:17 <sandro> dunno if that helps.
16:12:41 <cody> Someone already said "zakim aaaa is cody", so maybe that is why the statement no longer works
16:12:43 <Arnaud> cody is saying it's him
16:13:02 <sandro> ah.    i'm slow.
16:13:39 <Arnaud> I think it's because the call is over
16:13:51 <Arnaud> zakim, +aaaa is cody
16:13:51 <Zakim> sorry, Arnaud, I do not recognize a party named '+aaaa'
16:13:55 <Arnaud> right
16:14:21 <Arnaud> it's ok I can fix the minutes to reflect it anyway
16:14:39 <cody> Thx.
16:15:29 <JohnArwe> arnaud your transcript should show that we attributed aaaa to cody in zakim Very Shortly after he joined.  he said he did not know how to do so, so I did it.
16:15:50 <Arnaud> ok
16:16:10 <JohnArwe> remember that zakim for attendees unions them all together.  I forget if the minuting script collapsing resolved aliases or not.
16:18:06 <JohnArwe> cody, wrt to the 0200 start that is Very Likely wrong, copied from Lyon (where 0800 CET would be 0200 ET)
16:19:01 <JohnArwe> ...hence: email to list on it.  EricP presumably will then check whatever he booked at MIT and make Zakim's times align, then reflect that on the page (correctly)
16:19:12 <cody> OK
16:19:28 <cody> Is there a private list email? I seem to only have the public-ldp@
16:20:38 <sandro> The charter says the group will work in public, so that's the main list.   There is also member-ldp-wg for confidentail stuff like phone numbers, but that's rarely used.
16:20:39 <Arnaud> there are two lists: public-ldp and public-ldp-wg
16:20:50 <JohnArwe> all our emails are public.  there is another list (public) for non-members to append to if needed.
16:20:56 <sandro> (and you are on member-ldp.wg too.)
16:21:00 <cody> Ok- got it. Thanks!
16:21:59 <Arnaud> as a member you can post to either list
16:22:03 <JohnArwe> cody: you in vegas next week?
16:22:14 <Arnaud> non members can subscribe to both but only post to public-ldp
16:24:44 <cody> No. I'm in Dallas/Fort Worth next week. Was unaware of Vegas. (Sorry, I am just really, really green at this).
16:25:25 <cody> What is going on in Las Vegas? IBM conf?
16:25:29 <JohnArwe> cody: (2) I also see you posed a question in IRC that may have been missed.  Short answer on dates is that the month/year gets added very close to the end, because they are taken from the date it hits Rec.  Until then all ns values we own should be thought of as provisional.
16:26:02 <JohnArwe> cody: (1) yeah Pulse Conf.  if you were going to be there would be an opp for F2F meeting was the thought.  NP.
16:27:13 <cody> Got it on the URL. Thanks. And enjoy the conference!
16:27:36 <JohnArwe> cody: (2) ...also the email contents were an excerpt; in the ttl file in mercurial the ns we're using for now is <http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#>.
16:27:48 <gavinc> gavinc has joined #ldp
16:52:06 <jmv> jmv has joined #ldp
17:37:33 <bblfish> bblfish has joined #ldp
17:52:41 <cygri> cygri has joined #ldp
# SPECIAL MARKER FOR CHATSYNC.  DO NOT EDIT THIS LINE OR BELOW.  SRCLINESUSED=00000369