13:53:44 RRSAgent has joined #ldp 13:53:44 logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/06/10-ldp-irc 13:53:46 RRSAgent, make logs public 13:53:46 Zakim has joined #ldp 13:53:48 Zakim, this will be LDP 13:53:48 ok, trackbot; I see SW_LDP()10:00AM scheduled to start in 7 minutes 13:53:49 Meeting: Linked Data Platform (LDP) Working Group Teleconference 13:53:49 Date: 10 June 2013 13:54:27 stevebattle3 has joined #ldp 13:57:56 SW_LDP()10:00AM has now started 13:57:58 Ashok has joined #ldp 13:58:05 +SteveBattle 13:59:42 Same here ... will join in a few minutes 14:00:36 +Arnaud 14:00:46 JohnArwe has joined #ldp 14:01:06 +JohnArwe 14:02:39 regrets: sandro 14:02:50 + +329331aaaa 14:02:55 +bblfish 14:02:58 +Ashok_Malhotra 14:03:11 hi 14:03:12 +Steve_Speicher 14:03:46 Zakim, this is Steve_Speicher 14:03:47 sorry, SteveS, I do not see a conference named 'Steve_Speicher' in progress or scheduled at this time 14:03:51 mielvds has joined #ldp 14:03:54 +[GVoice] 14:04:01 zakim, aaaa is Miel 14:04:01 +Miel; got it 14:04:02 Zakim, [GVoice] is me 14:04:02 +ericP; got it 14:04:14 zakim, Steve_Speicher is me 14:04:14 +SteveS; got it 14:04:21 zakim, aaaa is me 14:04:21 sorry, mielvds, I do not recognize a party named 'aaaa' 14:04:35 fair enough 14:04:44 rgarcia has joined #ldp 14:04:50 zakim, who's on the phone? 14:04:50 On the phone I see SteveBattle, Arnaud, JohnArwe, Miel, bblfish, Ashok_Malhotra, SteveS, ericP 14:05:31 ah ok 14:06:10 +??P11 14:06:24 zakim, ??P1 is me 14:06:24 +rgarcia; got it 14:06:26 +OpenLink_Software 14:06:27 "Yes we scan" 14:06:32 Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me 14:06:32 +TallTed; got it 14:06:35 Zakim, mute me 14:06:35 TallTed should now be muted 14:06:44 Scribe: Henry 14:07:10 They look OK 14:07:20 minutes looked good to me 14:07:38 +roger 14:07:56 Topic: last meeting's's notes 14:08:04 roger has joined #ldp 14:08:09 bhyland has joined #ldp 14:08:12 Resolved: accepted last week's minutes 14:09:04 LDP Agenda for today: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2013.06.10 14:09:19 Topic: next meeting 14:09:25 in Spain. 14:09:58 krp has joined #ldp 14:10:04 Topic: Tracking issues 14:10:18 Topic: Tracking Actions 14:10:52 http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/actions/open 14:11:14 which action are we looking at? 14:11:40 http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/actions/68 14:11:52 Resolved: Close action 68 14:12:03 Resolution: Close Action 68 14:12:21 +??P14 14:12:33 Arnaud: for others to look at the spec updates and make sure they are happy with it 14:12:45 Topic: Issues 14:13:17 Issue-80 ? 14:13:17 ISSUE-80 -- How does a client know which POST requests create new resources -- raised 14:13:17 http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/80 14:13:32 zakim, ??P14 is me 14:13:32 +krp; got it 14:15:26 How does a client know that a POST is going to create a new resource? 14:15:31 q+ 14:16:30 q? 14:17:10 summary of changes on action-68: moved topic from GET-containers (5.3.2?) to HEAD-Containers since that's where it's more useful; also added the LDP-defined URL to the vocabulary document. 14:17:39 please add your summary of your talk here 14:17:59 Arnaud: leave it as Raised. 14:18:06 or open it. 14:18:34 q? 14:18:46 ack bblfish 14:18:47 issue-80 discussion, came at it from standpoint of how does client know the semantic it gets is "create". 14:19:50 Zakim, unmute me 14:19:50 TallTed should no longer be muted 14:22:45 Kalpa has joined #ldp 14:24:02 Resolution: open Issue-80 14:24:58 Issue-74? 14:24:58 ISSUE-74 -- How does a client know if conditional requests are required -- pending review 14:24:58 http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/74 14:26:31 Arnaud: summarises it and says it should be uncontroversial 14:26:31 PROPOSAL: Close ISSUE-74: How does a client know if conditional requests are required as proposed. 14:26:44 +Kalpa 14:26:45 +1 14:26:46 +1 14:26:47 +1 14:26:48 +1 14:26:48 +1 14:26:52 +1 14:26:52 +1 14:26:53 +1 14:26:57 +1 14:26:59 +1 14:27:14 Resolved: Close ISSUE-74: How does a client know if conditional requests are required as proposed. 14:28:33 which issue? Issue-71? 14:29:05 issue-71? 14:29:05 ISSUE-71 -- No membershipSubject or membershipPredicate -- open 14:29:05 http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/71 14:33:29 q+ 14:34:43 ack stevebattle 14:35:43 that's issue-72 14:37:00 q+ 14:37:38 q+ 14:37:45 q+ 14:37:57 deref LDPC, get description of Container, which lists its Members by URI. 14:37:57 to get descriptions of Members, deref *their* URIs -- and they might say "this is a document" and they might NOT say that 14:38:14 ack john 14:38:16 q? 14:38:23 you don't need to be given any other URI to get the description of a Container's Member 14:39:26 ack ashok 14:40:18 john: current document does not say one cannot have relations of membership that are not documents, just that one cannot use POST to do that, but PATCH would be ok 14:40:33 q+ 14:40:36 I'm wondering whether "this is incomprehensible to me" shouldn't be addressed by an issue that *says* that 14:40:40 ack steveb 14:40:54 ashok: what are the two situations: what henry would like and what others would like 14:41:07 yes, thanks for helping :-) 14:41:20 q? 14:42:05 stevebattle3: issue-72 shows when the membershipSubject, Object falls short. IT also shows that rdfs:member is not really a relation 14:42:07 ack bblfish 14:43:46 bblfish: we should be as close to ATOM as possible. 14:44:06 I disagreee !!!! 14:44:07 q+ to paste a lot 14:44:12 Is anybody going to argue in defence of the status quo? 14:46:36 ack eric 14:46:36 ericP, you wanted to paste a lot 14:46:43 q+ 14:47:59 conflating entities and documents about entities (using rdfs:member as the membership predicate): 14:48:02 LDPC: { rdfs:member . } 14:48:05 LDPR: { issue:description "borken" . } 14:48:07 separating entities from documents about entities: 14:48:10 LDPC: { rdfs:member . } 14:48:12 LDPR: { issue:description "borken" . } 14:48:15 pathological case: 14:48:17 LDPC: { rdfs:member . } 14:48:20 LDPR: { issue:description "borken" . } 14:49:12 +q 14:50:19 that is ISSUE-72 14:51:00 ack john 14:51:57 -q 14:52:42 q+ to give a tiny bit of background on monotonicity 14:53:05 ack eric 14:53:05 ericP, you wanted to give a tiny bit of background on monotonicity 14:53:40 q+ 14:54:38 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2013Jun/0003.html 14:55:38 ack bblfish 14:55:58 FWIW, I don't think that the current spec discussion falls into EricP's description of "ok to break monotonicity when the world changes" 14:56:21 JohnArwe, yeah, i'm arriving at that too 14:58:20 if the monotonicity issue could be solved by simply always requiring ldp:membershipXXX (it's the defaulting that's the problem), why not just as EricP said simply always require those predicates, even if their object(s) == the current default? 14:58:36 In this case the absence of a membershipPredicate is supposed to mean something. It does break monotonicity. 14:59:02 JohnArwe, i'd say that that's the simplest path. others become quite convoluted 14:59:08 @steveB, "in this case" meaning in the spec as drafted today? 14:59:16 Yes 14:59:33 I sense a proposal forming ... 15:00:11 -Ashok_Malhotra 15:00:17 Straw-poll of one - I support issue 71 proposal 15:00:18 i would support that John. 15:00:20 ok, see you next week 15:00:22 -bblfish 15:00:24 -SteveS 15:00:25 -roger 15:00:26 -Miel 15:00:27 -rgarcia 15:00:27 -krp 15:00:29 -JohnArwe 15:00:30 -Arnaud 15:00:30 -Kalpa 15:00:32 -TallTed 15:00:33 -ericP 15:00:34 -SteveBattle 15:00:36 SW_LDP()10:00AM has ended 15:00:36 Attendees were SteveBattle, Arnaud, JohnArwe, +329331aaaa, bblfish, Ashok_Malhotra, Miel, ericP, SteveS, rgarcia, TallTed, roger, krp, Kalpa 15:00:42 mielvds has left #ldp 15:00:52 Kalpa has left #ldp 15:02:00 +1 solve monotonicity problem by simply always requiring ldp:membershipXXX be stated (it's the defaulting that's the problem) 15:04:12 stevebattle3 has joined #ldp 15:43:09 SteveS has joined #ldp 16:58:51 davidwood has joined #ldp 17:31:31 Zakim has left #ldp 17:45:12 bblfish has joined #ldp 21:48:23 davidwood has joined #ldp 23:35:11 ahaller2 has joined #ldp