IRC log of ldp on 2013-02-18

Timestamps are in UTC.

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
15:06:58 [bblfish]
Topic: Minutes from Feb 11
15:07:13 [bblfish]
approved
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 call
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 gave a status report on w3c happenings
15:09:49 [bblfish]
... concerning 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: 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]
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]
Topic: 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]
reopen 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
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 version
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]
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 perhamitted 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]
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]
me: 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 :)
16:01:43 [Zakim]
-sergio.a
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
17:15:28 [oberger]
oberger has joined #ldp
18:10:34 [SteveS]
SteveS has joined #ldp
18:16:38 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #ldp
20:14:58 [SteveS]
SteveS has joined #ldp
21:00:29 [jmvanel]
jmvanel has joined #ldp
22:39:54 [bhyland]
bhyland has joined #ldp