13:55:20 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #ldp
13:55:20 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/05/13-ldp-irc
13:55:22 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
13:55:22 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #ldp
13:55:24 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be LDP
13:55:24 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_LDP()10:00AM scheduled to start in 5 minutes
13:55:25 <trackbot> Meeting: Linked Data Platform (LDP) Working Group Teleconference
13:55:25 <trackbot> Date: 13 May 2013
13:56:51 <cody> cody has joined #ldp
13:57:16 <Ashok> Ashok has joined #ldp
13:57:29 <svillata> svillata has joined #ldp
13:57:38 <Zakim> SW_LDP()10:00AM has now started
13:57:45 <Zakim> +[IBM]
13:57:52 <SteveS> Zakim, [IBM] is me
13:57:52 <Zakim> +SteveS; got it
13:57:54 <JohnArwe> JohnArwe has joined #ldp
13:57:58 <SteveS> Chair: SteveS
13:58:03 <SteveS> Regrets: Arnaud
13:59:40 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
13:59:50 <cody> Zakim, IPcaller is me
13:59:50 <Zakim> +cody; got it
14:00:12 <Zakim> +[OpenLink]
14:00:16 <cody> cody has joined #ldp
14:00:26 <TallTed> Zakim, [OpenLink] is temporarily me
14:00:26 <Zakim> +TallTed; got it
14:00:28 <TallTed> Zakim, mute me
14:00:28 <Zakim> TallTed should now be muted
14:00:33 <TallTed> Zakim, who's here?
14:00:33 <Zakim> On the phone I see SteveS, cody, TallTed (muted)
14:00:35 <Zakim> On IRC I see cody, JohnArwe, svillata, Ashok, Zakim, RRSAgent, bhyland, TallTed, SteveS, oberger, jmvanel, betehess, cygri, Yves, sandro, trackbot, ericP, thschee
14:00:38 <roger> roger has joined #ldp
14:00:47 <rgarcia> rgarcia has joined #ldp
14:00:49 <Zakim> +Ashok_Malhotra
14:00:51 <Zakim> +??P7
14:01:00 <nmihindu> nmihindu has joined #ldp
14:01:12 <svillata> Zakim, ??P7 is me
14:01:13 <Zakim> +svillata; got it
14:01:26 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
14:01:38 <ericP> SteveS, i'll be 30 mins late. will you still be talking about tests then?
14:02:02 <SteveS> ericP, maybe…I could shuffle the order to make sure it comes in 29+ minutes
14:02:07 <Zakim> +JohnArwe
14:02:16 <Zakim> +??P14
14:02:26 <rgarcia> zakim, ??P14 is me
14:02:26 <Zakim> +rgarcia; got it
14:02:31 <SteveS> Zakim, who's here?
14:02:31 <Zakim> On the phone I see SteveS, cody, TallTed (muted), Ashok_Malhotra, svillata, [IPcaller], JohnArwe, rgarcia
14:02:33 <Zakim> On IRC I see nmihindu, rgarcia, roger, cody, JohnArwe, svillata, Ashok, Zakim, RRSAgent, bhyland, TallTed, SteveS, oberger, jmvanel, betehess, cygri, Yves, sandro, trackbot, ericP,
14:02:33 <Zakim> ... thschee
14:03:34 <Zakim> +[GVoice]
14:03:35 <Zakim> -[GVoice]
14:03:46 <roger> zakim, i am [IPcaller]
14:03:46 <Zakim> ok, roger, I now associate Roger with [IPcaller]
14:03:54 <Zakim> +??P21
14:04:25 <nmihindu> Zakim, ??P21 is me
14:04:25 <Zakim> +nmihindu; got it
14:04:32 <Arnaud> Arnaud has joined #ldp
14:05:50 <Arnaud> Arnaud 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:Telecon2013.05.13
14:05:55 <Ashok> scribenick: Ashok
14:06:12 <Zakim> +Sandro
14:06:19 <Ashok> Topic:  Minutes from May 6 telcon
14:07:00 <SteveS> Minutes from may 6th http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/ldp/2013-05-06
14:07:59 <Ashok> Steve:  There was some email discussion.  I have cleaned up the minutes to reflect that.
14:08:14 <Ashok> Minutes approved w/o objection
14:08:27 <Ashok> Topic:  Next meeting
14:08:37 <Ashok> Same time, same place
14:08:42 <Ashok> Topic:  f2f
14:09:00 <Ashok> 9 say they they will atend, 3 will atend remotely
14:09:10 <Ashok> s/atend/attend/
14:09:38 <JohnArwe> Is May 20 a UK holiday?  I see in Canada it's Victoria Day.
14:09:48 <Ashok> Tpoic: Tracking Actions and Issues
14:10:04 <Zakim> +bblfish
14:10:07 <Ashok> s/Tpoic/Topic/
14:10:43 <bblfish> bblfish has joined #ldp
14:10:50 <krp> krp has joined #ldp
14:10:51 <bblfish> hi
14:11:04 <Ashok> Steve:  Arnaud has split some complex into into several simpler issues
14:11:46 <Ashok> Topic:  Action-56 ... editorial changes for Action-59
14:11:53 <Zakim> +??P27
14:11:56 <bblfish> action-56?
14:11:56 <trackbot> ACTION-56 -- Steve Speicher to [EDITOR] Remove aggregate/composite containers and leave just 1 -- due 2013-05-15 -- PENDINGREVIEW
14:11:56 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/actions/56
14:12:04 <Ashok> No objections
14:12:23 <Ashok> Steve:  There are 15 open actions, 13 are overdue
14:13:32 <Kalpa> Kalpa has joined #ldp
14:14:18 <Ashok> No other progress on actions
14:14:52 <Ashok> Topic:  Issues pending review
14:14:52 <Zakim> +Kalpa
14:14:54 <Ashok> None
14:15:05 <Ashok> Topic: Raised issues
14:15:17 <Ashok> Steve:  We have 3 raised issues
14:15:28 <JohnArwe> zakim, issue-62?
14:15:28 <Zakim> I don't understand your question, JohnArwe.
14:15:31 <Ashok> ISSUE-62
14:15:31 <trackbot> ISSUE-62 -- Creating Sibling Containers -- raised
14:15:31 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/62
14:15:33 <nmihindu> ISSUE-62?
14:15:33 <trackbot> ISSUE-62 -- Creating Sibling Containers -- raised
14:15:33 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/62
14:16:25 <Ashok> Roger explains issue
14:17:22 <Arnaud> ISSUE-62 needs a better name
14:17:35 <Ashok> Steve:  Can we change name to make intent more explicit
14:17:36 <Arnaud> Roger called that child containers before
14:18:11 <pchampin> pchampin has joined #ldp
14:18:43 <Arnaud> we should at least be consistent
14:19:12 <bblfish> yes it can be edited in the interface
14:19:14 <SteveS> suggest naming it "Creating containers associated with LDRs"
14:19:30 <Ashok> Roger:  That's good!
14:19:43 <rgarcia> s/LDRs/LDPRs/
14:19:45 <Zakim> -cody
14:19:52 <bblfish> Ah, ok. So the idea is you have an LDR and you want to create a container for it?
14:20:40 <SteveS> idea was I have a NetWorth resource, I have no assets or assetContainer, how do I bring one into existence?
14:20:41 <bblfish> q+
14:20:42 <JohnArwe> yes Henry: given an LDPR, which has n containers "associated with" it, how do you add n+1st
14:21:21 <JohnArwe> ...when the LDPR is not itself necessarily an LDP*C*
14:21:44 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.a]
14:22:28 <Ashok> bblfish:  This continues the confusion with membership predicate
14:22:51 <JohnArwe> Henry do we have an open issue already on membership predicate?
14:23:11 <roger> yes, I can have a go at re-editing the text
14:23:15 <Ashok> bblfish:  We should change the text also
14:24:05 <svillata> q?
14:24:30 <Ashok> bblfish:  Let's close raise new issue
14:24:35 <bblfish> ok
14:24:40 <bblfish> sounds good
14:24:49 <Ashok> Roger:  I can edit the text and we can consider it next week
14:25:02 <bblfish> Issue-63?
14:25:02 <trackbot> ISSUE-63 -- Need to be able to specify collation with container ordering -- raised
14:25:02 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/63
14:25:05 <Ashok> ISSUE-63
14:25:05 <trackbot> ISSUE-63 -- Need to be able to specify collation with container ordering -- raised
14:25:05 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/63
14:25:48 <cody> cody has joined #ldp
14:26:30 <TallTed> +1 open
14:26:34 <Ashok> Steve:  Explains issue
14:26:50 <Ashok> No objections to opening issue
14:27:11 <bblfish> Issue-69
14:27:11 <trackbot> ISSUE-69 -- Query syntaxes for accessing the first and subsequent pages -- raised
14:27:11 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/69
14:27:12 <Ashok> ISSUE-59
14:27:12 <trackbot> ISSUE-59 -- Reconsider usage of Aggregate/Composite construct to get predictable container delete behavior -- closed
14:27:12 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/59
14:27:25 <Ashok> s/59/69/
14:27:55 <Ashok> Steve: Originally stared by Steve Battle
14:28:18 <Ashok> Steve:  Expllains issue
14:28:34 <Ashok> s/Expllains/Explains/
14:28:36 <bblfish> ok, sounds good
14:29:05 <Ashok> No objection to opening issue -- ISSUE-69 is open
14:29:20 <Ashok> Topic:  Test Suite
14:29:22 <SteveS> ericP, you going to be available soon?
14:29:37 <Ashok> Wating for EricP
14:29:40 <SteveS> Test Suite information : https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/default/Test%20Cases/LDP%20Test%20Cases.html
14:30:13 <Ashok> Topic:  Open Issues
14:30:21 <Ashok> ISSUE-58
14:30:21 <trackbot> ISSUE-58 -- Property for asserting that complete description of members is included in LDPC representation -- open
14:30:21 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/58
14:30:45 <SteveS> Proposal from Arnaud see option B http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2013Apr/0141.html
14:30:56 <Ashok> Steve:  We took a straw poll on this last week
14:31:27 <SteveS> Proposal: Close ISSUE-58 by adding to ldp:Container a property ldp:memberInlined which indicates the
14:31:28 <SteveS> members for which a complete description is inlined in the container document.
14:31:45 <Ashok> Option B:  Add to ldp:Container a property ldp:memberInlined which indicates the  members for which a complete description is inlined in the container  document.
14:32:14 <TallTed> I suggest changing "indicates" to "enumerates" or "lists" ... and then +1
14:32:47 <bblfish> q+
14:32:51 <roger> +q
14:33:05 <rgarcia> Agree with TallTed, not clear whether the ldl:memberInlined property is for one resource or for a list of them
14:33:11 <roger> zakim, i am [IPcaller]
14:33:11 <Zakim> ok, roger, I now associate Roger with [IPcaller]
14:33:31 <krp> zakim, ??P27 is me
14:33:31 <Zakim> +krp; got it
14:34:10 <Ashok> bblfish:  Why not just one resource that is "inlined"?
14:34:25 <bblfish> <> ldp:memberlined <member1>, <member2>, <member3>
14:34:32 <JohnArwe> raul: members (plural) in the email
14:34:55 <JohnArwe> henry: if you have access to browser, Arnaud's email does have proposed turtle for each option
14:34:56 <nmihindu> There is an example at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2013Apr/0141.html
14:35:02 <rgarcia> JohnArwe: in the email and in the proposal it is in singular
14:35:07 <TallTed> Zakim, unmute me
14:35:07 <Zakim> TallTed should no longer be muted
14:35:31 <Ashok> TallTed:  "Indicates" is unclear.  Pl. reword.
14:35:42 <roger> so, ldp:memberfullyinlined ?
14:35:43 <TallTed> Zakim, mute me
14:35:43 <Zakim> TallTed should now be muted
14:35:45 <SteveS> q?
14:35:48 <SteveS> ack bblfish
14:35:49 <JohnArwe> raul: from the 141 email link above:
14:35:51 <JohnArwe> Option B:
14:35:51 <JohnArwe> Add to ldp:Container a property ldp:memberInlined which indicates the
14:35:51 <JohnArwe> members for which a complete description is inlined in the container
14:35:51 <JohnArwe> document.
14:35:52 <roger> -q
14:35:54 <bblfish> q-
14:36:07 <JohnArwe> ...i.e. indicates the members (sic - members)
14:36:13 <SteveS> Zakim, [IPCaller] is roger
14:36:13 <Zakim> +roger; got it
14:36:18 <TallTed> Zakim, [IPcaller] is roger
14:36:18 <Zakim> sorry, TallTed, I do not recognize a party named '[IPcaller]'
14:36:22 <SteveS> ack [IPCaller]
14:36:33 <bblfish> q+
14:36:53 <bblfish> q-
14:37:02 <Ashok> Roger:  It's a list not a single property
14:37:13 <Zakim> +[GVoice]
14:37:13 <SteveS> Proposal: Close ISSUE-58 by adding to ldp:Container a property ldp:memberInlined which enumerates the members for which a complete description is inlined in the container response document.
14:37:35 <bblfish> anyway, it makes sense to me the way it is
14:37:55 <sandro> +1
14:38:00 <SteveS> +1
14:38:15 <JohnArwe> zakim, [GVoice] is ericP
14:38:15 <Zakim> +ericP; got it
14:38:21 <TallTed> +1
14:38:22 <roger> +q
14:38:23 <bblfish> Close ISSUE-58 by adding to ldp:Container a property ldp:memberInlined which relates the container to LDPRs for which a complete description is inlined in the container response document.
14:38:24 <svillata> +1
14:38:25 <ericP> +1
14:38:25 <bblfish> +1
14:38:26 <krp> +1
14:38:26 <nmihindu> +1
14:38:53 <TallTed> Zakim, unmute me
14:38:53 <Zakim> TallTed should no longer be muted
14:38:53 <sandro> <container> ldp:memberInlined <memberURI>
14:38:55 <rgarcia> +0.5 (without seeing the example it is not clear if we are referring to an rdf:List or not)
14:38:59 <Arnaud> I thought we could repeat the property but it could also be a list
14:39:25 <bblfish> ldp:memberInlines is  a one to many relation
14:39:34 <JohnArwe> raul: the example from email 141 is
14:39:35 <JohnArwe> <>
14:39:35 <JohnArwe>    a o:NetWorth, ldp:Container;
14:39:35 <JohnArwe>    ldp:membershipPredicate o:asset;
14:39:35 <JohnArwe>    o:asset <a1>, <a2>;
14:39:35 <JohnArwe>    ldp:memberInlined <a1>, <a2>.
14:39:36 <sandro> <#myFriendsCollection> ldp:memberInlined <#alice>, <#bob>, <#david>.    # Not charlie
14:39:43 <Ashok> TallTed:  One triple per inlined member
14:39:44 <ericP> -.5
14:41:10 <sandro> <> ldp:memberInlined <#alice>, <#bob>, <#david>.    # Not charlie
14:41:24 <Ashok> bblfish:  Objects to use of # urls
14:41:28 <sandro> ... means All the triples I know that involved #alice are in this document.
14:41:47 <pchampin> wondering what happens when the container is paginated
14:41:50 <Ashok> Eric:  The # urls should be : Urls
14:42:01 <TallTed> s/Eric:/TallTed:/
14:42:04 <sandro> But not "must".    Hash URIs are fine for this.
14:42:18 <SteveS> pchampin, a difference I was thinking it might be a property of a ldp:Page in that case
14:42:39 <pchampin> yes, I think that would be wise
14:42:58 <pchampin> in fact, I would prefer that it was always a property of ldp:Page
14:43:05 <pchampin> even if the container is described by a single ldp:Page
14:43:07 <ericP> <alice> { <sa> <pa> <oa> . } <container> { <> ldp:memberInlined <alice> . }
14:43:14 <Ashok> q+
14:44:13 <Ashok> Eric:  Wonders if it's a all or none property
14:44:19 <Arnaud1> Arnaud1 has joined #ldp
14:44:26 <sandro> but if you're including all the triples, one more is okay.
14:45:46 <TallTed> Zakim, unmute me
14:45:46 <Zakim> TallTed was not muted, TallTed
14:45:55 <TallTed> q+
14:46:09 <Ashok> Eric:  LDP data will be mainly homogeneous
14:46:13 <SteveS> ack roger
14:46:13 <bblfish> q+
14:46:17 <nmihindu> ericP, It is like option A in the proposals ?
14:46:40 <Ashok> Roger:  Disagrees if LDP is really rectangular data
14:46:55 <SteveS> nmihindu, is what I understand ericP is saying
14:47:04 <ericP> nmihindu, iirc, there is a proposal with a global predicate to indicate exhaustively inlined members. that may be A
14:47:09 <bblfish> I have a better solution guys
14:47:21 <SteveS> q?
14:47:25 <SteveS> ack Ashok
14:48:10 <bblfish> Ashok give me a second
14:48:29 <SteveS> ack TallTed
14:48:30 <bblfish> I'll argue for something that solves both those issues simultaneoulsy
14:48:35 <Ashok> ... we can make it more general
14:48:51 <ericP> q+ to say that when we see the situation for which the enumeration is appropriate, we can add it
14:49:04 <Ashok> Ashok:  How about also a single boolean property that all members are inled
14:49:14 <Ashok> s/inled/inlined/
14:49:31 <Ashok> Ted:  Argues for both properties
14:49:38 <SteveS> ack bblfish
14:50:11 <bblfish> <> member [ title "hello world",... ]
14:50:14 <Ashok> Henry:  We don't need either property
14:50:27 <Arnaud> Arnaud has joined #ldp
14:50:31 <bblfish> <> member [ title "hello world",...  owl:sameAs <member> ]
14:50:33 <Ashok> ... use a blank node as above
14:51:00 <ericP> the bnode is cool for this purpose 'cause in fact one could not dereference it, but i suspect that a lot of our infrastructure depends on dereference
14:51:15 <pchampin> @bblfish: this has the same problem as ldp:hasInlinedMember: adds an extra triple (owl:sameAs)
14:51:28 <pchampin> ... and makes things cumbersome for non-OWL-enabled clients
14:53:20 <Ashok> Henry:  sameAs is widely used
14:53:26 <JohnArwe> ericp: we GA'd an integration component 2 months ago (where we think LDP fits nicely) that is a single heterogeneous collection of all (for some definition of all) IT resources in an enterprise.
14:53:44 <ericP> 'GA'?
14:54:07 <SteveS> s/GA'd/shipped/
14:54:11 <JohnArwe> generally available ... i.e. we're allowed to talk about it w/o lawyers, and you can "buy" it
14:54:50 <ericP> JohnArwe, ok, so that's a case for option B
14:55:03 <Ashok> Steve:  How should we proceed
14:55:31 <Ashok> Ted:  We have options E and F.  E is both properties, F is Henry's new proposal
14:55:33 <bblfish> I'll write up my proposal
14:55:39 <bblfish> and send to the list.
14:55:43 <ericP> +1 to A, я and X but never Q
14:56:07 <Ashok> Topic:  Test Suite
14:56:08 <SteveS> Test Case first draft https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/default/Test%20Cases/LDP%20Test%20Cases.html
14:57:28 <Ashok> Raul: 3 topics ..,design of test, how to run tests and how test are described
14:58:00 <Ashok> ... I have some issues I will send to mailing list
14:58:49 <Ashok> Raul:  Describes how test suite would work
15:00:08 <cody> q+
15:00:38 <ericP> q-
15:00:51 <SteveS> ack cody
15:01:07 <Ashok> Raul:  If we only have tests for the MUST statements, we will have very few test.  Need to think about how to test optional statements
15:01:52 <Ashok> Cody:  What is purposee of test suite?   Why don't implementers write their own tests?
15:02:04 <Ashok> ... need an introduction
15:02:19 <JohnArwe> cody: one use we've discussed previously for the test suite is to form proposals for change in them, as a way to agree on the DESRIED result of a given set of inputs and interactions.
15:02:38 <JohnArwe> interop testing is the big kahuna though
15:02:46 <Ashok> Eric:  From a process perspective we need to say we have 2 or more implementations.  Also need that for outreach.
15:02:58 <SteveS> thanks all, if you need to drop understand…just want to continue discussion as some of us having been able to sync up on this
15:03:09 <Zakim> -roger
15:03:22 <SteveS> s/been able/not been able/
15:03:57 <bblfish> very good answer :-)
15:04:04 <sandro> q+
15:04:07 <TallTed> Zakim, mute me
15:04:07 <Zakim> TallTed should now be muted
15:04:12 <Ashok> Eric:  The implementations must be able to say they pass they test to say they are conforming implementations
15:04:17 <Zakim> -krp
15:04:24 <Ashok> s/they/the/
15:04:53 <SteveS> q?
15:05:44 <Zakim> -TallTed
15:05:56 <SteveS> ack sandro
15:06:45 <Ashok> Sandro:  Rather than implementations saying whether they pass or fail, this approach says they just send us the output.  This is a new approach
15:08:44 <Ashok> Discussion about implementation should report output rather than just pass/fail
15:09:06 <Zakim> -JohnArwe
15:09:21 <bblfish> +1
15:09:38 <Ashok> Steve:  Let's adjourn but we can have a discussion
15:09:46 <Zakim> -svillata
15:09:46 <ericP> ADJOURNED
15:09:55 <bblfish> Steve attempting a speec acts for closing the session
15:10:05 <bblfish> s/speec/speech/
15:10:19 <bblfish> :-)
15:12:33 <rgarcia> q+
15:12:57 <bblfish> q+
15:14:12 <SteveS> ack rgarcia
15:14:40 <SteveS> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/default/Test%20Cases/LDP%20Test%20Cases.html#TC-C9
15:14:53 <ericP> -> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/default/Test%20Cases/LDP%20Test%20Cases.html#TC-C9 POST an LDPR on an LDPC
15:15:56 <SteveS> ack bblfish
15:16:23 <SteveS> bblfish: is saying there is also some issue with access control, meaning can then create and delete
15:17:32 <SteveS> ericP: for now, we just tell them to make sure the user creds they use have appropriate rights do the operations of the test
15:17:37 <bblfish> true
15:18:08 <bblfish> ok so SPARQL tests also have update problems which could involve access control
15:21:40 <Zakim> -Ashok_Malhotra
15:25:16 <Zakim> -Sandro
15:25:18 <Zakim> -[IPcaller.a]
15:25:18 <Zakim> -SteveS
15:25:22 <Zakim> -rgarcia
15:25:25 <Zakim> -nmihindu
15:25:28 <Zakim> -ericP
15:25:29 <Zakim> -Kalpa
15:25:43 <Kalpa> Kalpa has left #ldp
15:30:29 <Zakim> disconnecting the lone participant, bblfish, in SW_LDP()10:00AM
15:30:31 <Zakim> SW_LDP()10:00AM has ended
15:30:31 <Zakim> Attendees were SteveS, cody, TallTed, Ashok_Malhotra, svillata, JohnArwe, rgarcia, nmihindu, Sandro, bblfish, Kalpa, krp, roger, ericP
15:41:34 <stevebattle> stevebattle has joined #ldp
17:21:05 <bblfish> bblfish has joined #ldp
17:26:08 <Zakim> Zakim has left #ldp
17:56:23 <bblfish> bblfish has joined #ldp
18:31:12 <bblfish> bblfish has joined #ldp