14:03:52 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #ldp
14:03:52 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/03/11-ldp-irc
14:03:54 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
14:03:56 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be LDP
14:03:56 <Zakim> ok, trackbot, I see SW_LDP()10:00AM already started
14:03:57 <trackbot> Meeting: Linked Data Platform (LDP) Working Group Teleconference
14:03:57 <trackbot> Date: 11 March 2013
14:04:35 <Zakim> -ericP
14:04:59 <Zakim> +[GVoice]
14:05:19 <Arnaud> zakim, who's on here?
14:05:20 <Zakim> I don't understand your question, Arnaud.
14:05:46 <Arnaud> zakim, who is here?
14:05:46 <Zakim> On the phone I see Sandro, Arnaud, [GVoice], pchampin, Ashok_Malhotra, ??P10, TallTed (muted), ??P13, dret, JohnArwe
14:05:48 <Zakim> On IRC I see RRSAgent, Arnaud, JohnArwe, dret, Zakim, Ashok, TallTed, pchampin, jmvanel, gavinc, sandro, ericP, Yves, thschee, betehess, trackbot
14:06:14 <ericP> Zakim, [GVoice] is me
14:06:14 <Zakim> +ericP; got it
14:08:38 <dret> i can step in
14:08:46 <dret> ok, i won't step in
14:08:53 <sandro> scribe: sandro
14:11:00 <sandro> two unidentified callers.   mysterious!
14:11:23 <dret> +1
14:11:24 <ericP> +1
14:11:27 <sandro> Arnaud: At our last F2F, we arranged for an informal telecon afterwords.
14:11:32 <sandro> PROPOSED: accept minutes from last week
14:11:45 <sandro> RESOLVED: accept minutes from last week (March 4)
14:12:20 <sandro> Arnaud: At informal telecon right afterwords, we went over what happened, to catch up people who missed it.  That's the plan for next week's telecon.
14:12:44 <sandro> Arnaud: So people who come to the F2F, you don't have to join the telecon next week.  We wont be making any decisions or anything like that.
14:12:58 <sandro> Arnaud: On the F2F -- do we have the final list of participatns?
14:13:29 <sandro> Arnaud: I haven't heard any feedback on the agenda.
14:14:25 <sandro> Arnaud: Maybe breakouts.    Long list of issues; no proposal for some of them.
14:15:00 <sandro> Arnaud: I STRONGLY suggest if you care about an issue, you send out a proposal BEFORE the meeting.
14:15:05 <dret> the break-out groups would be chartered with preparing proposals for those issues which don't have any right now.
14:15:20 <Ashok> q+
14:15:51 <sandro> Arnaud: If people are remote and really care, we can try to work around their schedule.
14:16:05 <Arnaud> ack ashok
14:16:47 <sandro> Ashok: We still have arguments and disagreements on the overall @@.  I was hoping we could talk about that early
14:16:55 <sandro> s/@@/model/
14:17:20 <sandro> Arnaud: I'm kind of torn on that.
14:17:57 <sandro> Arnaud: If we could agree on the model, things would be easier, yes.   But it doesn't seem to be working, so maybe bottom up will work better.
14:18:03 <Zakim> +Yves
14:18:06 <sandro> .. like develop the test suite, and see how that goes.
14:18:11 <dret> switch from topd-down to bottom-up mode, yes. i think we have established that top-down doesn't seem to work all that great for us.
14:18:29 <sandro> +1 bottom up
14:18:51 <sandro> Arnaud: We'll end up needing to make the same design decisions, but without the details we don't understand each other.
14:18:54 <dret> and then when we have better spec'd bottom-up cases, we need to distill the model.
14:19:23 <sandro> eric: There's a possibility that working with test cases will get us toward the model than discussion the model theoretically
14:19:28 <sandro> Arnaud: exactly.
14:19:35 <dret> yup, i agree that the tests are an excellent way to go forward.
14:19:52 <sandro> ericP: Ashok, do you see a way to have the Test discussion first, in a way that will help us have a grounded Model discussion.
14:19:55 <Arnaud> q?
14:20:04 <sandro> dret, can you take over scribing for 10-15 now?
14:20:12 <sandro> Ashok: I need to think about this.
14:21:34 <dret> i can do that...
14:22:46 <dret> Arnaud: keep breakout sessions as an option, but in such a fragmented group it may be counter-productive; will be decided on demand
14:23:06 <Zakim> -??P13
14:23:20 <dret> Topic: Actions and Issues
14:23:49 <Zakim> -??P10
14:24:13 <dret> Proposal: close ACTION-29
14:24:54 <dret> Decision: ACTION-29 closed
14:26:22 <dret> ACTION-38 remains opne while we switch to bottom-up mode for the model discussion
14:30:00 <Ashok> But is this a LDP issue?
14:30:44 <Arnaud> ack Yves
14:31:47 <dret> discussing ISSUE-49 and whether it's part of LDP or should be considered orthogonal
14:32:46 <dret> Yves: pointing to metalink and saying that we should be very cautious about making mirroring/equivalence a part of LDP
14:32:52 <TallTed> TallTed has joined #ldp
14:33:02 <dret> Ashok: agrees with Yves
14:33:19 <dret> Arnaud: seems like most people agree that it's not an LDP issue
14:33:20 <JohnArwe> ...yves said he would put reference to other materials on the public list; some issues with attack vectors.
14:33:43 <Arnaud> ack sandro
14:34:26 <dret> Sandro: use OWL sameas in data or in the HTTP header
14:35:04 <dret> these are RDF solutions, we might also recommend HTTP-level ones?
14:35:14 <pchampin> q+ to notice that owl:sameAs is symetrical
14:35:21 <Arnaud> ack pchampin
14:35:21 <Zakim> pchampin, you wanted to notice that owl:sameAs is symetrical
14:36:28 <dret> pchampin: not sure about sameas, because it is supposed to be symmetrical
14:37:05 <SteveS> SteveS has joined #ldp
14:37:39 <Zakim> +[IBM]
14:37:39 <Yves> See https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6249
14:37:44 <sandro> scribe: sandro
14:38:03 <SteveS> zakim, [IBM] is me
14:38:03 <Zakim> +SteveS; got it
14:38:12 <Ashok> q+
14:38:15 <dret> thanks, sandro!
14:38:23 <Arnaud> proposal: close issue-49, making no change
14:38:34 <Arnaud> ack ashok
14:38:59 <sandro> Ashok: There's a section 4.1.4 that spoke to this.  Does that get clarified or removed or what?
14:39:16 <sandro> Arnaud: No one has proposed that
14:39:54 <sandro> Arnaud: There is one MUST in the spec.
14:40:32 <sandro> Ashok: I recommend keeping it open and figuring out what to do with that part of our spec.
14:41:04 <sandro> Arnaud: I don't want to just leave it open, and then we'll come back in 2 months
14:41:13 <sandro> Ashok: give me an action
14:41:38 <SteveS> q+
14:41:38 <sandro> Arnaud: So we'll leave ISSUE-49 open for now, and Ashok with produce a recommendation about what to do about 4.1.4
14:41:47 <Arnaud> ack steves
14:42:14 <bhyland> bhyland has joined #ldp
14:43:42 <sandro> action Ashok to propose how to modify the text of 4.1.4 to go with closing ISSUE-49 (with no material modification to spec)
14:43:42 <trackbot> Created ACTION-40 - Propose how to modify the text of 4.1.4 to go with closing ISSUE-49 (with no material modification to spec) [on Ashok Malhotra - due 2013-03-18].
14:44:42 <dret> i'm fine with ignoring ISSUE-37 for now and then attempt to distill it from tests
14:45:22 <sandro> Arnaud: We were going to talk about Reverse Membership Predicate, but Steve Battle asked we not decide in his absence, so we'll put it off.
14:45:35 <sandro> Arnaud: He did send email with example.
14:46:59 <sandro> dret: I liked Steve's notion that navigability and data model are different things.       What are the concepts that we identify and represent; and THEN decide on the affordances, where do we encode it, so clients can find that part of the data model in that place.
14:47:35 <sandro> .. I really like the idea of splitting them.  Make membership part of model, then later talk about how to make it navigable, maybe in both directions.
14:47:55 <sandro> Arnaud: I thought you might agree with that.  :-)
14:48:10 <sandro> Arnaud: Steve's example was very useful.   I had no understood it.
14:48:20 <sandro> Arnaud: We need more examples posted.
14:49:06 <sandro> Arnaud: I had thought it was a back-link, but he's just using a different membership property.    The link is in the same direciton, container to member.
14:50:13 <sandro> topic: issue-35
14:50:16 <sandro> issue-35?
14:50:16 <trackbot> ISSUE-35 -- POSTing to a container MUST yield a fresh URI -- open
14:50:16 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/35
14:50:41 <sandro> Arnaud: We had a similar discussion about whether URIs could be reused after delete.
14:51:07 <sandro> .. Like MUST you get an error doing a GET after a DELETE?
14:51:22 <sandro> .. people seemed to think there may be cases where a URI is reused.
14:51:26 <sandro> issue-24?
14:51:26 <trackbot> ISSUE-24 -- Should DELETED resources remain deleted? -- closed
14:51:26 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/24
14:51:39 <dret> i hope we don't say anywhere that you MUST get an error..
14:51:45 <sandro> Arnaud, so issue-35 and issue-24 seem linked
14:51:59 <pchampin> I agree that they seem linked
14:52:01 <sandro> (your logic sounds good to me, Arnaud)
14:52:31 <TallTed> seems an accurate assessment...
14:52:57 <sandro> dret, I don't think we have liberty to decide this.   if a server decides to re-use URIs, that's up to it.   clients shouldn't make those assumptions.
14:53:12 <sandro> s/dret,/dret:/
14:53:29 <sandro> dret: I don't think clients have business looking at URIs like this.
14:53:43 <sandro> Arnaud: Richard proposed server must not re-assign URI.
14:54:00 <sandro> q+
14:54:19 <TallTed> POSTing to a container MUST yield a URI ...  it's server's choice what that URI is, and I think whether that URI is guaranteed new or re-used is and should remain outside our control
14:54:47 <sandro> Arnaud: To be consistent with 24 we can't change anything on 35.   because we already said URIs may be reused
14:54:51 <Arnaud> ack sandro
14:55:32 <ericP> sandro: i'm concearned about the situation where client A deletes </foo> and client B continues to use </foo>
14:56:03 <ericP> ... if something else creates </foo>, the meaning will change out from under client B.
14:56:23 <sandro> Arnaud: Yeah, "under certain cirumstances".     So in the NORMAL case you'd get a new URI.
14:56:28 <ericP> ... we need text which talks about "delete if if you're *sure* the URL hasn't leaked out"
14:56:33 <sandro> Arnaud: So I'm okay with a SHOULD.
14:56:34 <Arnaud> ack tallted
14:56:43 <dret> i think this is "deployment guide" stuff: don't do it, because of this and that.
14:56:57 <sandro> TallTed: This is no different from any other situation where URIs change.
14:57:42 <pchampin> I agree with TallTed
14:57:49 <dret> me too
14:57:54 <sandro> TallTed: I don't think this is an undetectable error condition.     You just have to document your server behavior
14:58:20 <dret> i'd prefer non-spec level, this is just best practice
14:58:57 <sandro> sandro: documenting server bevavior means there's no spec here.
14:59:18 <SteveS> I like increasing the awareness from what we have, like with should or recommended, and possibly update some guidance into the deployment guide
14:59:45 <sandro> sandro: MUST is too hard to implemnt, but strongly worded SHOULD is okay
15:00:04 <sandro> Arnaud: Sounds like we're coming to SHOULD, but let's not decide until we have Richard present.
15:00:11 <dret> not sure. this is not a protocol issue. it's just a recommendation.
15:00:57 <dret> yup, and if people want to shoot themselves in the foot, they are allowed to do so. they just dimish the vaue of their service.
15:00:59 <sandro> TallTed: I think SHOULD might be too strong.    eg in the case of a reboot
15:01:19 <sandro> sandro: if the client can't assume the URIs will be stable on a given server, we have a huge problem.
15:01:21 <Zakim> -Ashok_Malhotra
15:01:23 <dret> thanks everybody! thanks, sandro!
15:01:29 <Zakim> -dret
15:01:33 <sandro> thanks, dret!
15:01:41 <sandro> Arnaud: See many of you in Boston!!
15:01:45 <sandro> ADJOURN
15:01:49 <Zakim> -Yves
15:01:50 <Zakim> -TallTed
15:02:09 <Zakim> -pchampin
15:03:17 <Zakim> -JohnArwe
15:03:30 <sergio> sergio has joined #ldp
15:03:35 <sergio> hi
15:03:43 <sandro> https://www.csail.mit.edu/mrbs/view_entry.php?id=94640&area=1&day=14&month=03&year=2013
15:03:57 <JohnArwe> we just ended sergio --- US daylight savings started this past weekend
15:04:14 <cygri> cygri has joined #ldp
15:04:34 <Zakim> -SteveS
15:05:07 <Zakim> -Sandro
15:05:08 <Zakim> -Arnaud
15:05:10 <sergio> what' the new conference code?
15:05:12 <Zakim> -ericP
15:05:13 <Zakim> SW_LDP()10:00AM has ended
15:05:13 <Zakim> Attendees were pchampin, Ashok_Malhotra, TallTed, dret, JohnArwe, Sandro, Arnaud, ericP, Yves, SteveS
15:06:01 <sandro> cygri, meeting just ended.     daylight saving time shift.
15:06:15 <sergio> ooooh
15:06:25 <sergio> same error than cygri
15:07:07 <cygri> i updated the calendar for RDF-WG and GLD-WG but must have forgotten LDP-WG
15:07:23 <sergio> me too
15:07:27 <sergio> sorry guys
15:07:29 <sandro> ETOOMANYWORKINGGROUPS
15:08:00 <cygri> cue rant about non-interoperable implementations of daylight saving time
15:09:28 <sergio> cygri: trick if you are using google calendar: set the time zone in us for that event
15:09:41 <sandro> oh, you can do that?
15:12:24 <ericP> -> http://www.energy.ca.gov/daylightsaving.html#earlydst daylight saving time shift
15:15:42 <cygri> ericP, I'm glad the compromise bill didn't involve shifting for half an hour
15:19:30 <ericP> 17.45 mins
15:22:19 <sergio> xD
15:22:43 <sergio> sandro: yes, google calendar supports that, I just never use it, from I'll do it for sure ;-)
15:23:41 <cygri> "yes i can make tuesday 11am GMT, but that will be a cygri from a timeline where today's meeting has not happened yet"
15:24:12 <sandro> *laugh*
15:24:22 <sandro> I know that guy!   He's brilliant!
15:24:34 <sandro> mysteriously well informed
15:29:04 <sergio> xDDD
15:30:25 <sergio> at least for me, the event is showed in my local timezone, even if the time is for GMT-05:00
15:33:30 <Arnaud> sorry you missed the call guys
15:33:41 <Arnaud> I did my part sending a reminder to the list
15:34:29 <Arnaud> I'll admit that I forgot to set my alarm clock and woke up right about the time of the call!
15:42:04 <cygri> Arnaud, historical W3C data shows that 10% of WG members bungle this, regardless of how many warnings the chairs send... i think it's a natural constant, like the speed of light
15:56:50 <gavinc> Or everyone could just get rid of this horrible idea, screw interop, just abandon Daylight Savings time completely!
16:02:35 <sandro> just stick to local local time.
16:02:39 <sandro> grrr
16:02:43 <sandro> local solar time
16:02:54 <sandro> to my fingers, "local" and "solar" are the same word.
16:05:11 <cygri> GMT everywhere!
16:08:50 <sandro> might as well go to decimal time as well.
16:08:52 <sandro> :-)
16:09:18 <cygri> and a decimal calendar.
16:10:12 <sandro> if we just speed up the rotation of the earth a little, we could get 400 days in a year, that would help a bit.   Then we'd have 100 days in a season, etc.
16:10:51 <sandro> or moving the earth to a larger orbit; that would also get us 400 days in a year, AND help reduce global warming.
16:11:07 <sandro> (how come I never hear anyone propose this!)
16:11:37 <cygri> (y)
16:12:14 <cygri> this would also dodge the doomsday asteroid
16:45:10 <bblfish> bblfish has joined #ldp
17:05:07 <Zakim> Zakim has left #ldp
17:30:22 <Arnaud> cygri, sandro: given the US track record on failing to adopt the metric system despite all its advantages and a much easier change to make than adopting a decimal calendar there is little hope that a decimal calendar would ever be accepted!...
17:43:56 <gavinc> Arnaud: We did adopt it! ... and then ignored it ;)
17:44:34 <gavinc> On the other hand, you can't service a car, bike, toaster, oven, or much of anything in the US with anything other then Metric tools
17:44:50 <gavinc> Mostly we haven't changed speed limits ;)
17:45:10 <gavinc> or other road signs
17:45:20 <Arnaud> and labelling!
17:46:23 <Arnaud> going to the grocery or hardware store still requires a good understanding of the american system
17:46:50 <Arnaud> after 15 years in the US I still struggle with the different measures of volumes and weight
17:49:31 <Arnaud> and it pains me to think that this is what my kid is being taught in school
17:50:32 <gavinc> eh? food labeling ist mostly dual
17:50:46 <Arnaud> "mostly" :)
17:50:57 <Arnaud> price tags aren't
17:51:09 <gavinc> Okay, the butcher looks at you very funny if you ask for grams of meat
17:51:32 <Arnaud> you want to compare the price of two similar items and one has a price per lb the other per ounce, etc.
17:51:47 <gavinc> Eh, science education for me was all in SI
17:52:43 <Arnaud> and because the items are sized in ounces etc you always end up with odd metric measures
17:53:28 <Arnaud> which kind of defeats the points
17:53:40 <Arnaud> s/points/point/
18:13:43 <bblfish> bblfish has joined #ldp
18:17:38 <bblfish> bblfish has joined #ldp
18:35:12 <bblfish> bblfish has joined #ldp
18:44:02 <bblfish> bblfish has joined #ldp
23:36:20 <bblfish> bblfish has joined #ldp