01:55:04 SteveS has joined #ldp 02:43:14 krp has joined #ldp 02:51:04 Arnaud has joined #ldp 03:00:15 trackbot, make minutes public 03:00:15 Sorry, Arnaud, I don't understand 'trackbot, make minutes public'. Please refer to for help. 03:01:08 invite zakim 03:01:22 Zakim has joined #ldp 03:01:37 zakim: make minutes public 03:12:10 rrsagent, publish minutes 03:12:10 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/03/15-ldp-minutes.html Arnaud 03:17:59 rssagent, help 03:18:25 rrsagent, help 03:19:50 rrsagent, adminhelp 03:22:55 rrsagent, make logs public 03:37:42 bhyland has joined #ldp 09:51:05 Zakim has left #ldp 09:54:51 Arnaud has joined #ldp 10:51:50 bhyland has joined #ldp 12:05:22 Arnaud has joined #ldp 12:44:08 davidwood has joined #ldp 12:45:40 davidwood1 has joined #ldp 12:47:47 bblfish has joined #ldp 12:49:18 rgarcia has joined #ldp 13:01:12 SteveS has joined #ldp 13:01:20 hi 13:02:14 Arnaud has joined #ldp 13:02:22 trackbot, start meeting 13:02:24 RRSAgent, make logs public 13:02:24 Zakim has joined #ldp 13:02:26 Zakim, this will be LDP 13:02:26 ok, trackbot, I see SW_LDP(F2F)8:30AM already started 13:02:27 Meeting: Linked Data Platform (LDP) Working Group Teleconference 13:02:27 Date: 15 March 2013 13:05:44 krp has joined #ldp 13:06:19 hi is the teleconf on? 13:06:32 nmihindu has joined #ldp 13:07:26 bblfish, not quite yet 13:07:45 well, I started it but we need to call in 13:08:05 we don't have the phone yet! 13:08:47 cygri has joined #ldp 13:09:09 coming up, hang in there 13:10:44 cody has joined #ldp 13:11:01 Ashok has joined #ldp 13:11:53 mesteban has joined #ldp 13:12:12 scribe: cody 13:12:15 chair: Arnaud 13:13:36 topic: Scheduling next face to face 13:14:33 +WG-meeting 13:15:01 davidwood: last call period is minimum 3 weeks 13:15:11 http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#last-call 13:16:02 arnaud: Steve and I were looking at the calendar the other day. Doesn't seem that easy to find a week that's going to work that well. 13:16:26 … first week of June is Semtech in San Fran 13:16:38 … week of 3rd of June is out 13:17:02 … one possibility: aim for second week of June 13:17:32 I don't really hear anything. Arnaud is very distant, and there is background noise. 13:17:49 … discussing the WHERE 13:18:03 sandro: you're all welcome to come back here (M.I.T.) 13:19:16 arnaud: ashok agreed to host in New York, but others complained that it's expensive 13:20:12 migueal: We have to check for permission, but I think Madrid may be possible. We have to check for permission and get back to the group about that. 13:20:42 migueal = miguel 13:21:16 s/migueal/miguel/ 13:21:36 s/miguel/mesteban/ 13:22:28 ah the noise is better now 13:22:35 kevin: another thing to avoid is SWC which is like May 26 13:22:48 I can hear Arnaud and others discussing W3C AC meeting... 13:23:51 TallTed has joined #ldp 13:23:55 arnaud: if we want to give buffer with our last call, should we aim for a bit later in June? 13:24:03 sandro: the week of July 8th 13:24:40 The last call is already coming up? 13:24:47 yes 13:24:58 I thought this project was a 3 year project 13:25:07 and we were only in the first year 13:25:33 q+ 13:27:13 sandro: last week of June is European Sem Web conference 13:27:35 arnaud: I'm just wondering about May 20th 13:27:54 No, the ESWC is the last week of May. 13:28:54 arnaud: Except WWW conference is the week before 13:29:20 ashok: isn't that a bit early? 13:29:38 steves: I think it makes sense in this case, just to try to get to last call 13:30:13 arnaud: Either the week of 10th of June or week of 17th of June 13:30:53 arnaud: for now, let's go for the week of June 17th. We would do like 18, 19, 20 (if we want to do another 3 day) 13:31:12 roger has joined #ldp 13:31:50 F2F3 candidate locations, Madrid, London, or Boston (team favors that order), but arguing travel budgets 13:32:05 davidwood: let's do a straw poll 13:32:14 the noise has come back. 13:32:19 JohnArwe has joined #ldp 13:32:24 strawpol: 1) madrid, 2) london, 3) boston 13:32:31 SteveBattle has joined #ldp 13:32:42 1 0 -1 13:32:42 +1 +1 -0.33333 13:32:45 -1, -1, +1 13:32:45 0,0,1 13:32:49 +1, +1, +1 13:32:50 -1 -1 +1 13:32:51 +0.5 +1 0 13:32:52 -1 −1 +1 13:32:55 +1 +1 +1 13:32:58 +1, +1, +1 13:32:59 +0,+0,+1 13:33:14 ok 13:33:15 +1, +1, 0 13:33:27 +1 0 -1 13:33:33 +1, +1, 0 13:33:33 I hear now. 13:33:46 q+ 13:33:52 q- 13:33:54 that works 13:34:13 RRSAgent, pointer? 13:34:13 See http://www.w3.org/2013/03/15-ldp-irc#T13-34-13 13:34:18 ack bblfish 13:34:47 I'll check the charter 13:34:48 arnaud: it is not a 3 year project; we're chartered for 2 years 13:35:34 Charter: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/charter 13:35:38 0 +1 +1 13:35:48 2012-06 13:35:48 F2F3 13:35:48 Face-to-face meeting, if needed 13:37:20 arnaud: OK, we'll leave it at that for now. We have proposed dates, locations, and a general straw poll 13:37:40 topic: Open Issues 13:38:30 arnaud: technically we don't HAVE to take public comments into account at this point, but I think it wise to deal with them sooner, rather than later. 13:39:08 … need to figure out how we want to address the comments. davaidwood, one of your colleagues, for example, submitted several 13:39:44 q+ 13:40:08 q- 13:40:47 davidwood: somebody needs to get back to James formally, in the working group, and say that we acknowledge the comments 13:41:02 … I can do that. I'm sure Jame's perspective is similar to mine. 13:41:29 sandro: do we want to start tracking comments now? lc tracker? 13:41:45 … it's a comment tracker 13:41:46 q+ 13:43:22 q- 13:43:27 s/davaidwood/davidwood/ 13:43:46 q+ 13:45:11 ack cygri 13:45:58 Is someone scribing cygri's question because I did not hear what he said 13:45:59 cygri: would be good to report on how we tried to make sense of some of the terminology issues at dinner last night 13:46:38 q+ 13:46:39 cygri: I don't know that we made consensus amongst ourselves, though 13:47:03 … What we talked about can be lumped under ISSUE 37 (the model) 13:48:00 … I objected to this notion that you could post to a container and then have a member of a container that is not an LDPR; I thought through and withdrawal that objection 13:48:10 ack bblfish 13:48:18 Issue-52 13:48:18 ISSUE-52 -- base -- raised 13:48:18 http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/52 13:49:17 arnaud: lets talk about the issues we'd like to talk about today first, then we can sort out priority 13:49:32 … there is the one on batch versus patch 13:49:36 … we had binary 13:49:39 … and model 13:49:43 … missing any? 13:50:08 stevebattle: issue 50 (one of henry's) 13:50:56 issue-50 13:50:56 ISSUE-50 -- Intuitive Containers: better support for relative URIs -- open 13:50:56 http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/50 13:51:05 arnaud: So, we have to try to manage time here. Can we first try to see if the dinner helped us get anywhere related to pagination. 13:51:16 … Roger feels we rushed that 13:51:23 … ISSUE 33 13:51:30 ISSUE-33 ? 13:51:30 ISSUE-33 -- Pagination for non-container resources -- closed 13:51:30 http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/33 13:52:03 … Roger, is there anything you want to tell us about this issue to help us reconsider. 13:52:25 http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/meeting/2013-03-14#resolution_1 13:52:27 … Have you slept on it? 13:53:26 roger: it seems that a lot of our issues, not just the pagination (update or patch, or for creation issues) ... 13:54:00 q+ 13:54:25 scribe is not yet understanding roger's point (hold on) 13:54:48 ack steveb 13:56:14 steves: post to add. We closed an issue a few days ago to say that we wouldn't do that 13:56:27 The example is about POSTing the literal string "Mary" to Peter; how would this generalize to other datatypes? 13:56:56 q+ 13:59:06 roger: I tried to identify useful concepts for pagination and updates. You essentially get something that looks like PATCH. A useful construct for both issues: patch and pagination 13:59:40 arnaud: how is that telling me that the decision we made yesterday is not a good one? 13:59:49 davidwood has joined #ldp 13:59:51 roger: yeah - on face value it looks kind of the same 13:59:54 q+ 13:59:58 ack steveb 14:00:45 tallted: updates could different if you've paginated or haven't paginated 14:01:11 arnaud: are we talking about robust pagination, which we have another issue for? 14:01:34 roger has joined #ldp 14:01:41 … still trying to figure out how they are linked together 14:02:15 ted: it will benefit us if richard could summarize the discussion last night 14:02:21 ack ashok 14:03:09 q+ 14:03:22 q- 14:03:33 arnaud: agree - we need a debrief of last night 14:03:54 http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/User:Rcygania2/Richard%27s_LDP_101 14:04:06 … lets switch gears, forget ISSUE 33 for now, and discuss the informal break-out session from last night 14:04:23 topic: LDP Model 14:04:41 cygr: my way of explaining how LDP works 14:04:47 … LDP has 2 parts to it: 14:06:04 documented in wiki "The two things that LDP does" 14:06:51 … Value sets : a set of triples with the same subject, same predicate, different object 14:07:21 … let's not get hung up on the term though 14:07:30 … you could call it a set of membership triples 14:07:44 … there is also the inverse 14:07:55 … same predicate, same object, but different subject 14:08:27 … LDP names value sets with an IRI 14:08:50 … and can be interacted with in various ways using HTTP. 14:09:45 What is the point of making this restriction? 14:10:25 I am assuming that the notion of triple set is being introduced in order to restrict what should go in an LDPR... 14:10:48 s/assuming/worried/ 14:10:51 … /foo/p1 s the IRI for a Value Set. If you do a GET on that URL, you'll get back those 3 triples 14:11:14 in my opinion it is being introduced to *partition* a LDPR 14:11:30 … but the URI of the Value Set is NOT the subject in the triples (unless maybe in some rare special cases) 14:11:33 to partition it into what? 14:11:53 into groupings according to predicate names 14:11:56 is this for Container membership? 14:11:59 tallted: imagine that each one of those 3 positions is filled with a full URI 14:12:08 s/Container/Pagination partition/ 14:12:38 cygri: the subject you have in the value sets is not the same as the URI of the value set 14:12:57 rgarcia has joined #ldp 14:13:08 … the subject uri could be anything. It doesn't matter at all what the subject URI is (for this value et thing) 14:13:49 Yes, I still don't know why this concept is being introduced. Did I miss something? 14:14:26 … so in our example where the subject is foo, there could be other value sets that have foo as the subject 14:15:55 … container: value sets are really handy for building these REST style containers. The term container may lead to a narrow view of what you can do with them 14:16:18 Ashok has joined #ldp 14:16:24 … Value Set is my current conceptual replacement for what we've been calling Container 14:16:51 q+ 14:17:01 … the spec says you can PUT and PATCH to put any triples into this container; I don't see how that's helpful. 14:18:02 ack ashok 14:18:16 ashok: My worry is that if I want to create a container that has apples and oranges... 14:18:43 cygri: VS has single subject, single predicate. If you want a diff predicate, that's a diff value set 14:18:55 tallted: apples and oranges are objects, not predicates 14:20:17 johnarwe: membership triples in a container have same subject and predicate (been in the spec since beginning) 14:20:45 ashok: I'm hung up on the thing that the subject and predicate have to be the same in the collection 14:21:11 sandro: thats a normal RDF graph, this is a special kind of RDF graph that is more constrained 14:21:28 cygri: DELETE > two forms 14:22:13 cygri wants to turn RDF into a plain OO system. 14:22:39 You can see that he is thinking of URLs as objects with the methods and varialbes as the relations 14:23:33 q+ 14:23:47 But this removes a lot of flexibility from the system. 14:24:03 cygri: and the third thing is pagination 14:24:20 … you can follow a next pointer to get more triples in the value set 14:25:03 … Roger wants to add a single member to a value set by posting to a URI 14:25:08 krp has joined #ldp 14:26:04 ack steveb 14:26:18 … also wants to do dynamic introspection of what is possible with a value set 14:26:47 +q 14:27:10 SteveS has joined #ldp 14:28:24 ack nmihindu 14:29:39 If I have value-set I'm still unsure about what I can do on 14:30:00 cygri: in order to remove single member from a container in current spec, the only way is using PUT or PATCH 14:31:22 q+ 14:31:46 nandana: where does it differ from current spec, except for the naming changes? 14:32:05 cygri: I'm folding in some changes I'd like to see in paging, but that's a separate issue. 14:32:14 … what I'm trying to make clear is that 14:32:28 … there is a distinction between this subject resource and the Value Set 14:32:50 … by using the term Container, it doesn't make it mentally easy to keep those two things apart 14:33:23 ? 14:33:56 ack steveb 14:34:09 what is your ? henry 14:34:24 I don't understand where this is going. 14:34:34 … this is just describing the current spec in different words 14:34:42 arnaud: there are differences, that's not true 14:34:55 cygri: with the exception of paging, I don't think so 14:35:09 Do I get RDF if I do a GET on a value-set? (Yes) 14:36:00 If I want to delete a single triple from a value set, I still have to do a PUT or PATCH? (still unanswered) 14:36:21 henry: people had a sense that many of the disagreements were people talking past each other. at dinner several of those with widely different-sounding viewpoints came up with something we could all agree to. 14:37:04 ... to first order, the intent is that this is simply another way to speak about the same spec as we have today in terms more people can relate to. 14:37:19 … GET on a value set also gives some metadata. (see Metadata triples in value sets) 14:37:52 … GET on foo, you get some RDF and the met data triples about any value sets that use foo 14:37:55 there seems to be a suggestion that a LDPR should only contian one value set. 14:37:58 nmihindu_ has joined #ldp 14:38:08 ... what complicated things slightly is (1) not everyone has all the ins/outs of the spec in their forebrains, so when cyrgi made certain existing aspects more explicit people are surprised (Kevin's pt) (2) cygri did introduced a change or two around pagination. 14:38:13 q+ 14:38:30 ack tallted 14:38:59 no, his intent is that one LDP*C* contains exactly one value set ... hence the stmts that "value set" can be thought of as just another name for today's "membership triples" 14:39:03 q+ 14:39:57 <> a foaf:PersonalProfileDocument; 14:39:57 foaf:primaryTopic <#me> . 14:39:57 <#me> a foaf:Person… 14:39:58 foaf:knows [ = <../jack#me>; foaf:name "Joe" ]… 14:40:00 How many value sets in there. How does this help? 14:40:02 q+ 14:40:25 … we have ability distinguish delete and recessive delete in the metadata 14:40:34 how many containers are in your sample henry? 14:40:39 sandro: essentially a domain-specific LDR 14:40:57 … LDPR 14:40:59 is this restricted to containers? 14:41:43 cygri: one of these containers exists purely for managing the values of a certain property. 14:42:07 q- 14:42:20 i.e. an LDPC is not a domain resource 14:42:40 <> a ldp:Container; 14:42:40 :member [ = ; :title "Foaf Profile"; author [ = ; foaf:name "Jack"; ] ] . 14:43:08 … container: managing the resource - not really a domain object. It exist in order to provide ability to add, remove, manipulate, page through members 14:43:11 as cygri is using the term, "value set" is essentially equivalent to "container" (his wiki page explicitly asserts that) ... he agreed informally as well as here that "v s" also equiv to "membership triples" b/c for him that set of triples are a major feature of containers, but also a feature that would be useful in other contexts 14:43:21 ack ashok 14:43:36 Can someone answer my PUT/PATCH question, "To change a value-set I still have to use PUT/PATCH?" 14:44:10 ashok: we agreed containers can have containers within them 14:44:38 … we've got to be able to put a value set in a value set 14:44:42 SB, I think it's on "have to" that differences might emerge. can you? yes. 14:44:45 Since Value set is a purely RDF graph centric thing, I don't see how it is related to containers. Containers is about resource creation. It happens to often be described by a pattern called a value set. 14:44:53 cygri: there's nothing that stops you from using the URI of another Value Set 14:45:13 stevebatlle: to modify a value set do I still use PUT and PATCH? 14:46:07 Henry, that sounds like violent agreement with cygri. As he pointed out last night, some people come at this from a REST/interaction viewpoint (so they care about create etc more), others from a more purely RDF standpoint (and for them the membership triples are more important) 14:46:44 Yes, but I don't see that you need restrictions to value sets. 14:46:51 graphs are good enough 14:47:04 tallted: this is the result of all of our conversation last night; doesn't lay the groundwork we began with. We discussed... 14:47:27 q+ 14:47:30 … current container: a factory, an enumerator, a modifier (including delete) 14:48:29 you want a new HTTP DELETE method? 14:48:38 RECURSIVE-DELETE ? 14:48:43 ack john 14:51:11 If you don't want a new HTTP delete method, then you want something like factory methods. 14:51:20 Ted was suggesting that, assuming we keep recursive delete which he was not especially a fan of, it should be an option on the delete request (however we do that) rather than a choice baked into a container's implementation all the time. if a container impln chose to only offer one kind of delete, I suspect he'd be fine with that as well. 14:52:27 ok. 14:53:05 ...while not part of cygri's page, informally ted mentioned that (as an example) http delete might always be NON recursive, and containers that offer recursive delete would advertise that by exposing a predicate we define whose object is a url that does the recursive delete 14:54:51 DELETE ?recursively ? 14:55:39 (hoping zakim doesn't try to execute that!) 15:04:29 TallTed has joined #ldp 15:05:51 davidwood has joined #ldp 15:06:09 http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/User:Rcygania2/Richard%27s_LDP_101 15:07:19 rgarcia has joined #ldp 15:07:30 roger has joined #ldp 15:08:05 arnaud: thanks cygri for the report 15:08:12 Scribe: Roger 15:09:08 SteveS has joined #ldp 15:09:18 arnaud: wants to know what we can do with value-sets going forward 15:12:06 q+ to ask Richard what a "REST-style container" is 15:12:15 arnald: should the naming difference (container vs. value set) be carried forward ? 15:13:10 +1 to cygri for figuring out that we are overloading a core concept ("One issue with LDP as currently designed is that it doesn't really give you flexibility to use these three abilities independently.") 15:13:23 s/arnald/arnaud/ 15:15:19 ack david 15:15:19 davidwood, you wanted to ask Richard what a "REST-style container" is 15:15:34 arnald: not everyone liked the filesystem analogy 15:17:03 cygri: a REST-style container is something you post to create something new 15:17:58 Note: not all "REST-style containers" support create, some are read/only 15:18:44 yes, but, there are not part of the 'model' as such, they are there to support interaction. 15:19:54 The sound is still very broken. Not sure if it is me, or something else 15:20:14 SteveS: is there are link from Steve to his friends value-set 15:20:16 ? 15:20:18 broken ... static? volume low? 15:20:27 +q 15:20:52 the sound goes up and down, and so I hear 3 words out of 5 15:21:40 q+ 15:21:50 is that any better? I'm not convinced they're actually speaking any louder 15:22:21 a very little bit better. 15:22:29 Let me try reconnecting with skype just in case 15:22:37 -bblfish 15:22:40 arnaud is moving the mic closer 15:22:58 ack roger 15:23:40 roger: issue-51 was exactly that issue - how to find container from member 15:23:41 +bblfish 15:23:53 Issue-51? 15:23:53 ISSUE-51 -- Linking from a Resource to its Containers (aka 'backlinks') -- raised 15:23:53 http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/51 15:24:10 any better henry? 15:24:34 ack steveb 15:24:39 a bit better but still very choppy. I hear steve well. 15:25:10 steve B? 15:25:16 So I hear cygri not so good. 15:25:35 q+ 15:25:42 roger: the addition to issue 51 is how to discover an empty value-set - to bootstrap it's manipulation 15:26:06 ack ashok 15:26:28 q+ 15:26:39 Ashok is choppy too. 15:26:41 yes 15:26:43 ashok: if you access Steve you should get URI to each of its value-sets, right ? 15:28:19 +q 15:29:17 where is the factory ? 15:29:29 arnald: where is the factory ? 15:29:50 ack steveb 15:30:57 hopefuly plausible example: 15:30:57 valueSet: http://example.com/TedKnows 15:30:57 membershipSubject: http://id.myopenlink.net/dataspace/person/tthibodeau 15:30:57 membershipPredicate: foaf:knows 15:30:57 to add/change/delete 15:30:58 - MAY PUT/PATCH/POST to http://example.com/TedKnows 15:31:00 - MAY PATCH/POST to http://id.myopenlink.net/dataspace/person/tthibodeau 15:31:02 - MAY but SHOULD NOT PUT to http://id.myopenlink.net/dataspace/person/tthibodeau