14:55:14 RRSAgent has joined #ldp 14:55:14 logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/03/04-ldp-irc 14:55:16 RRSAgent, make logs public 14:55:16 Zakim has joined #ldp 14:55:18 Zakim, this will be LDP 14:55:18 I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot 14:55:19 Meeting: Linked Data Platform (LDP) Working Group Teleconference 14:55:19 Date: 04 March 2013 14:55:23 Ruben has joined #ldp 14:55:32 pchampin has joined #ldp 14:55:40 svillata has joined #ldp 14:55:49 Ruben1 has joined #ldp 14:56:37 Ashok has joined #ldp 14:58:28 Am I the only one who cannot get past Zakim? 14:58:30 SteveS has joined #ldp 14:58:35 It says my code is not valid. 14:58:45 It's 53794, right? 14:59:13 hi, I haven't tried yet 14:59:17 me too - holding for operator 14:59:27 ok, will do the same 14:59:56 zakim, code? 14:59:56 sorry, Ashok, I don't know what conference this is 15:00:02 sandro has joined #ldp 15:00:04 Ruben has joined #ldp 15:00:07 Zakim, what is the code? 15:00:07 sorry, sandro, I don't know what conference this is 15:00:14 trackbot, start meeting 15:00:16 RRSAgent, make logs public 15:00:18 Zakim, this will be LDP 15:00:18 I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot 15:00:19 Meeting: Linked Data Platform (LDP) Working Group Teleconference 15:00:19 Date: 04 March 2013 15:00:20 zakim, this is ldp 15:00:20 sorry, Ashok, I do not see a conference named 'ldp' in progress or scheduled at this time 15:00:34 uh ph 15:00:36 uh oh 15:00:42 there is a problem 15:00:43 Zakim, what is wrong with you? 15:00:43 I don't understand your question, Ruben. 15:00:54 roger has joined #ldp 15:00:54 zakim is confused 15:00:56 zakim, room for 30 people? 15:00:58 ok, sandro; conference Team_(ldp)15:00Z scheduled with code 26637 (CONF7) for 60 minutes until 1600Z 15:01:03 I alreaady told trackbot to start the meeting but somehow the code is said to be wrong 15:01:11 sandro has changed the topic to: USE ZAKIM CODE 26637 for today 15:01:17 USE ZAKIM CODE 26637 for today 15:01:20 Team_(ldp)15:00Z has now started 15:01:23 ok 15:01:27 +OpenLink_Software 15:01:31 +[IBM] 15:01:41 zakim, code? 15:01:42 the conference code is 26637 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), Ashok 15:01:43 zakim, [IBM] is me 15:01:43 +SteveS; got it 15:01:58 +Arnaud 15:02:09 cygri has joined #ldp 15:02:09 hi 15:02:21 Kalpa has joined #ldp 15:02:25 +Ashok_Malhotra 15:02:30 +Sandro 15:02:38 + +1.214.537.aaaa 15:02:41 (repeating for newcomers) USE ZAKIM CODE 26637 FOR TODAY 15:02:51 +??P0 15:02:59 zakim, who is on the call? 15:02:59 On the phone I see TallTed (muted), SteveS, Arnaud, Ashok_Malhotra, Sandro, +1.214.537.aaaa, ??P0 15:03:07 #zakim, ??P0 is me 15:03:13 TallTed has changed the topic to: dial-in code 26637 for 2013-03-04 -- Linked Data Platform WG -- http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/ -- current agenda: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2013.03.04 15:03:24 +Ruben 15:03:31 am having trouble getting into the call 15:03:43 +MHausenblas 15:03:48 zakim, mhausenblas is me 15:03:48 +cygri; got it 15:03:51 bblfish, try the new code 15:03:53 zakim, kalpa is with me 15:03:53 +kalpa; got it 15:03:57 Code 26637 today 15:04:05 Default one doesn't work 15:04:10 +bblfish 15:04:17 thanks 15:04:35 zakim, who is on the call? 15:04:35 On the phone I see TallTed (muted), SteveS, Arnaud, Ashok_Malhotra, Sandro, +1.214.537.aaaa, ??P0, Ruben, cygri, bblfish 15:04:37 cygri has cygri, kalpa 15:05:19 Zakim, aaaa is cody 15:05:19 +cody; got it 15:05:46 zakim, ??P0 is me 15:05:46 +pchampin; got it 15:05:46 zakim, who is on the call? 15:05:47 On the phone I see TallTed, SteveS, Arnaud, Ashok_Malhotra, Sandro, cody, pchampin, Ruben, cygri, bblfish 15:05:47 cygri has cygri, kalpa 15:06:44 +??P18 15:07:04 sandro has changed the topic to: DIFFERENT dial-in code TODAY: 26637 for 2013-03-04 -- Linked Data Platform WG -- http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/ -- current agenda: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2013.03.04 15:07:05 chair: Arnaud 15:07:12 zakim, pick a victim 15:07:12 Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose cygri 15:07:36 arnaud, no, sorry 15:07:49 scribenick: Ashok 15:08:05 Topic: Admin 15:08:17 Approval of minutes from Feb 25 15:08:40 +??P22 15:08:56 Zakim, ??P22 is me 15:08:56 +svillata; got it 15:09:04 No objection. Minutes http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/meeting/2013-02-25 approved 15:09:13 bhyland has joined #ldp 15:09:31 Arnaud: Should we have a call on Monday? F2f next week 15:10:00 No objection. There will be a call next Monday 3/11 15:10:14 Arnaud: Discusses f2f 15:10:23 regrets: Yves 15:10:25 +[GVoice] 15:10:31 Zakim, [GVoice] is me 15:10:31 +ericP; got it 15:10:36 Topic: Actions 15:11:25 bhyland has joined #ldp 15:11:34 roger has joined #ldp 15:11:46 SteveS: I made some changes based on resolutions 15:11:46 is there a diff? 15:12:00 q+ 15:12:17 http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/actions/pendingreview 15:12:22 ack bblfish 15:12:53 A diff URL of the spec differences would be useful 15:13:38 SteveS: There is a change log. 15:14:05 ... also a Change History in mercurial repository 15:14:06 Changeset history in repo is at https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg 15:14:28 SteveS: Changes were all editorial 15:14:40 ok 15:14:58 yes 15:15:01 no objection 15:15:32 close: actions 30, 31, 34, 37 15:16:20 Arnaud: ACTion-29 is open 15:16:29 yes 15:16:34 Topic: Issues 15:16:49 Arnaud: Henry raised a new issue Issue-50 15:16:58 krp has joined #ldp 15:17:09 ... it is about creating a new type of container 15:18:03 ... it has to do with people being able to post content with relative URLs 15:18:41 +1 to open it 15:19:17 q+ to raise a concern about issue-50 15:19:31 ack pchampin 15:19:31 pchampin, you wanted to raise a concern about issue-50 15:20:09 Pchampin: Not sure why this would be useful ... uses URI knowledge rather than triples. 15:20:30 Well TimBerners lee and the group agreed that relative urls would be very important 15:20:49 +1 open 15:20:59 +1 open it 15:21:03 No objections to opening 15:21:04 proposed: open issue-50 15:21:25 resolved: open issue-50 15:22:12 Arnaud: I put out objectives and agenda for f2f 15:22:23 ... please review 15:24:29 Topic: New WD 15:24:42 Arnaud: I suggest we publish what we have 15:24:54 Proposed: Publish latest draft as our Second Public Working Draft. 15:24:59 +1 15:25:03 +1 15:25:07 +1 15:25:09 +1 15:25:09 +1 15:25:11 +1 15:25:13 +1 15:25:17 +1 15:25:27 +0 15:25:41 resolved: Publish latest draft as our Second Public Working Draft. 15:25:48 +1 15:25:55 s/resolvd/RESOLVED/ 15:26:45 s/resolved/RESOLVED/ 15:26:45 Topic: Issues 15:27:47 ISSUE-33 Pagination for non-container resources 15:28:34 q+ 15:29:00 ack cygri 15:29:24 Ricahrd: I can take an action to provide a usecase for issue-33 15:29:31 +??P27 15:29:45 zakim, ??P27 is me 15:29:45 +krp; got it 15:30:06 s/Ricahrd/Ricahrd/ 15:30:38 action: cygri to propose a use case for issue-33 15:31:11 Created ACTION-39 - Propose a use case for issue-33 [on Richard Cyganiak - due 2013-03-11]. 15:31:11 s/Ricahrd/Richard/ 15:31:13 Issue-49? 15:31:13 ISSUE-49 -- Canonical URL - how to communicate its value to clients -- open 15:31:13 http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/49 15:31:31 Topic: ISSUE-49: Canonical URL - how to communicate its value to clients 15:32:41 No HTTP experts on the call. 15:32:42 Issue-21? 15:32:42 ISSUE-21 -- container affordances -- open 15:32:42 http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/21 15:32:48 Topic: ISSUE-21: Reverse membership predicates? 15:33:37 q+ 15:33:48 ack bblfish 15:34:14 Arnaud: There is currently no requirement for resources to point back to the container 15:34:33 can't you just include a within the resource's representation that triple: refs:member <.> ? 15:34:57 ok 15:35:09 I argued that <> ldp:contains <.> . 15:35:21 q+ 15:35:21 you don't need a reverse relationship from content to container 15:35:53 Arnaud: Henry sent a note on ldp:contains arguing we need a different relationship to capture this 15:35:56 but you need a more specific relationship that rdfs:member because rdf:member is not precise enough to suggest a container ship relation 15:36:11 +q 15:36:35 My argument was here: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2013Mar/0027.html 15:37:25 ack roger 15:39:08 Roger explains his usecases 15:39:40 q+ 15:39:49 ack steves 15:40:41 q+ 15:40:47 ack bblfish 15:41:02 +q 15:41:40 ack pchampin 15:41:54 right, I could see adding also a ldp:CompositeContainer triple as well 15:43:05 ack roger 15:43:40 q+ 15:44:42 q+ 15:44:57 Arnaud: People are thinking by analogy with files and directories 15:45:09 @Arnaud in the example you mention, folders are aggregate :-) 15:45:17 ack ashok 15:45:20 s/folders/directories/ 15:46:00 Roger: We need to provide a way to indicate a back pointer 15:46:18 Arnaud: The spec does not prohibit back pointers 15:46:26 ack bblfish 15:47:02 @ashok, I would just like to clarify that I don't see this as a back pointer :) 15:47:09 q+ 15:47:16 ack bblfish 15:47:56 Ashok: So, it's not required but we need a standard mechanism to indicate it. Is that correct? 15:48:07 done 15:48:55 +q 15:49:28 ack roger 15:50:56 Arnaud: Please send mail re. this issue 15:51:04 issue-45? 15:51:04 ISSUE-45 -- POSTing to an LDPR appends content to the resource -- open 15:51:04 http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/45 15:51:30 Topic: ISSUE-45: POSTing to an LDPR appends content to the resource 15:52:36 +q 15:52:53 ack roger 15:52:55 q+ 15:53:04 Arnaud: Explains issue. Andy says we should do it. 15:53:12 issue-33? 15:53:12 ISSUE-33 -- Pagination for non-container resources -- open 15:53:12 http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/33 15:53:24 q+ 15:53:31 q+ 15:53:52 Roger: This is related to ISSUE-33 15:54:04 agree with Arnaud 15:54:24 ack steves 15:55:13 SteveS: Seems reasonable but need to clarify our PATCH model 15:55:18 ack tallted