IRC log of ldp on 2013-09-23

Timestamps are in UTC.

13:56:04 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #ldp
13:56:04 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/09/23-ldp-irc
13:56:06 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
13:56:07 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #ldp
13:56:08 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be LDP
13:56:08 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see SW_LDP()10:00AM scheduled to start in 4 minutes
13:56:09 [trackbot]
Meeting: Linked Data Platform (LDP) Working Group Teleconference
13:56:09 [trackbot]
Date: 23 September 2013
13:57:34 [Arnaud]
Arnaud has changed the topic to: LDP WG: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp - Today's agenda: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2013.09.23
13:58:45 [cody]
cody has joined #ldp
13:59:24 [Zakim]
SW_LDP()10:00AM has now started
13:59:26 [Zakim]
+ +1.661.748.aaaa
13:59:34 [Zakim]
- +1.661.748.aaaa
13:59:37 [Zakim]
SW_LDP()10:00AM has ended
13:59:37 [Zakim]
Attendees were +1.661.748.aaaa
13:59:55 [Zakim]
SW_LDP()10:00AM has now started
13:59:56 [Zakim]
+Arnaud
14:00:11 [bhyland]
bhyland has joined #ldp
14:00:14 [Zakim]
+[IPcaller]
14:00:16 [Zakim]
-[IPcaller]
14:00:16 [Zakim]
+[IPcaller]
14:00:21 [cody]
Zakim, IPcaller is me
14:00:21 [Zakim]
+cody; got it
14:01:06 [Ashok]
Ashok has joined #ldp
14:01:28 [Zakim]
+ +1.919.306.aaaa
14:01:51 [SteveS]
SteveS has joined #ldp
14:02:06 [bhyland]
bhyland has joined #ldp
14:02:30 [Zakim]
+Ashok_Malhotra
14:02:38 [Zakim]
+??P12
14:03:10 [stevebattle5]
zakim, ?P12 is me
14:03:10 [Zakim]
sorry, stevebattle5, I do not recognize a party named '?P12'
14:03:23 [stevebattle5]
zakim, p12 is me
14:03:23 [Zakim]
sorry, stevebattle5, I do not recognize a party named 'p12'
14:03:38 [stevebattle5]
zakim, P12 is me
14:03:38 [Zakim]
sorry, stevebattle5, I do not recognize a party named 'P12'
14:04:11 [stevebattle5]
zakim, ??P12 is me
14:04:11 [Zakim]
+stevebattle5; got it
14:05:04 [Arnaud]
zakim, who's on the phone?
14:05:04 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Arnaud, cody, +1.919.306.aaaa, Ashok_Malhotra, stevebattle5
14:05:10 [bblfish]
hi
14:05:46 [Zakim]
+OpenLink_Software
14:05:53 [Arnaud]
zakim, aaaa is SteveS
14:05:54 [Zakim]
+SteveS; got it
14:05:54 [TallTed]
Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
14:05:55 [Zakim]
+TallTed; got it
14:05:55 [TallTed]
Zakim, mute me
14:05:57 [Zakim]
TallTed should now be muted
14:06:05 [Arnaud]
zakim, who's on the phone?
14:06:06 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Arnaud, cody, SteveS, Ashok_Malhotra, stevebattle5, TallTed (muted)
14:07:15 [Zakim]
+JohnArwe
14:07:40 [JohnArwe]
JohnArwe has joined #ldp
14:08:05 [Ashok]
scribe: Ashok
14:08:58 [Ashok]
Topic: Approve minutes from Aug 26, Sep 3 and Sep 12, 13?
14:09:16 [Zakim]
+bblfish
14:09:59 [Ashok]
SteveS: I looked at minutes closely
14:10:14 [Ashok]
No objection to approving minutes
14:10:29 [Ashok]
Topic: ACTION ITEMS
14:11:26 [Ashok]
Action 93: Can be closed
14:11:26 [trackbot]
Error finding '93'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/users>.
14:12:05 [svillata]
svillata has joined #ldp
14:12:09 [Ashok]
Action-98: Inlining
14:12:09 [trackbot]
Notes added to Action-98 Removing "inlining" from spec, per resolution http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/ldp/2013-09-12#resolution_2.
14:12:12 [Zakim]
+??P33
14:12:22 [BartvanLeeuwen]
Zakim, ??P33 is me
14:12:22 [Zakim]
+BartvanLeeuwen; got it
14:13:00 [Zakim]
+??P34
14:13:24 [svillata]
Zakim, ??P34 is me
14:13:24 [Zakim]
+svillata; got it
14:13:51 [Ashok]
SteveS will respond to TimBL
14:13:52 [JohnArwe]
EricP sent an email claiming completion of 97
14:14:03 [Ashok]
Close Action-98
14:14:03 [trackbot]
Closed Action-98.
14:14:27 [Ashok]
Arnaud: Close Action-97. Email from Eric
14:15:38 [Ashok]
ACTION-93
14:15:38 [trackbot]
ACTION-93 -- Steve Speicher to Investigate how to change the spec so that in case the server discards some of triples the client sent it informs the client -- due 2013-09-24 -- PENDINGREVIEW
14:15:38 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/actions/93
14:16:07 [Ashok]
SteveS: I didn't chage 4.5.1
14:16:47 [Ashok]
... added wording that additional details may be provided
14:16:48 [Kalpa]
Kalpa has joined #ldp
14:18:42 [JohnArwe]
email with proposal is at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2013Sep/0051.html
14:18:51 [Ashok]
... 4.5.4 ... more info may be given re. the triples the server will accept
14:19:38 [bblfish]
q+
14:20:54 [Ashok]
Discussion on rejecting triples
14:21:33 [Arnaud]
ack bblfish
14:21:53 [cody]
q+
14:22:07 [Ashok]
... do all triples get managed by client. In that case, LDP server has little utility
14:22:35 [Zakim]
+Kalpa
14:22:36 [Ashok]
Henry: Asks about server managed properties ...
14:22:38 [Arnaud]
ack cody
14:24:27 [Ashok]
... which triples can server reject? What about triples not relevant to the application. Can server discard these?
14:24:51 [JohnArwe]
I'll just note here (for now - will email resp too) that proposed text appears to assume that both flavors of servers have the same constraints; not clear if that's intentional.
14:26:12 [Ashok]
Do we saya anywhere that triples the server does not recognize can be dropped?
14:26:24 [JohnArwe]
today we do
14:26:41 [JohnArwe]
...at least for put
14:26:43 [Ashok]
... at least the server should tell what it will do
14:27:27 [JohnArwe]
"will do" (discoverable in advance) or "did" (after the fact) ... or both. what you are you suggesting is required?
14:28:11 [cody]
2 types of server: constrained versus unconstrained or domain-specific versus "vanilla" (non domain-specific).
14:28:11 [stevebattle5]
q+
14:28:17 [Arnaud]
ack steveb
14:28:21 [TallTed]
I think LDP server MUST be allowed to not store a submission, but when it does so, it MUST notify the client somehow. easy to reject an entire submission (whether POST, PUT, or PATCH); harder to spec comms of why a submission is rejected; harder still to spec comms for a *partially* rejected submission.
14:29:14 [JohnArwe]
+1 ted. also seems a touch odd that we call out these two cases for put only, vs post (create) and patch where they could also be modified.
14:29:26 [TallTed]
Zakim, unmute me
14:29:26 [Zakim]
TallTed should no longer be muted
14:29:44 [Ashok]
SteveS: maybe we should say something stronger?
14:30:25 [bblfish]
q+
14:30:29 [cody]
Then I think the rejection message will need specification. The body of the response.
14:30:35 [Ashok]
Ted: Should be able to indicate which trioples were rejected
14:30:37 [cody]
We have to be very clear what was rejected.
14:30:50 [svillata]
q?
14:31:00 [cody]
Not just (oh, some things didn't make it); I would have to know precisely what.
14:31:26 [Arnaud]
ack bblfish
14:32:08 [stevebattle5]
q+
14:32:21 [JohnArwe]
the (spec) issue there cody is that, as tallted said, defining that "precisely what" is hard. if you also want the definition to be interoperable (which from context I suspect you do), then that would all become ldp work.
14:32:50 [Ashok]
Henry: Are we replacing the 208.5 with a warning?
14:33:47 [Arnaud]
ack stevebattle5
14:34:10 [jmvanel]
jmvanel has joined #ldp
14:34:43 [Arnaud]
ack steveb
14:34:50 [Ashok]
SteveB: Asks about deleting triples later
14:35:37 [bblfish]
HTTP/1.1 204 No content
14:35:37 [bblfish]
ETag: "ABC"
14:35:47 [Ashok]
Henry: The Etag has changed, right? If you have some vocab you can explain rejection
14:37:21 [Ashok]
Ted: ETag does not give enough info
14:37:53 [Ashok]
... difference between change rejected or overwritten by other user
14:39:10 [Ashok]
Arnaud: Says "servers may inform the client" dos that mean server still have otion to fail silently
14:39:17 [JohnArwe]
(from email) "4.5.1.1 LDPR servers MAY inform clients that some of the triples they provided were ignored ..."
14:39:43 [Ashok]
SatveS: Only for server-managed properties.
14:40:11 [Ashok]
Arnaud: Do we have a list of server-managed properties
14:41:02 [stevebattle5]
The proposal is going in the right direction though
14:41:16 [Ashok]
Arnaud: Let's move on. Please reply to Steve's email and so we can make progess
14:41:56 [Ashok]
Mail from John Arwe responding to comment from mark baker saying we are redefining HTTP
14:41:57 [JohnArwe]
"change to informative" proposal email = http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2013Sep/0052.html
14:42:43 [Ashok]
John: Any questions?
14:43:54 [Ashok]
Arnaud: Please respond to John's mail
14:45:09 [Ashok]
ISSUE-81 Confusing predicates
14:45:23 [bblfish]
Issue-81?
14:45:23 [trackbot]
Issue-81 -- Confusing membership* predicate names and other possible improvements -- open
14:45:23 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/81
14:45:29 [Ashok]
Arnaud: David Wood summarized possible names
14:47:09 [bblfish]
q+
14:48:22 [Ashok]
Henry: Makes a proposal ...
14:49:24 [Ashok]
Arnaud: Perhaps move proposals to Wiki page
14:49:46 [Ashok]
SteveS: I will do it
14:50:06 [Arnaud]
zakim, who's on the phone?
14:50:06 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Arnaud, cody, SteveS, Ashok_Malhotra, stevebattle5, TallTed, JohnArwe, bblfish, BartvanLeeuwen, svillata, Kalpa
14:50:13 [Ashok]
Arnaud: We will continue next week
14:50:24 [Ashok]
PATCH proposals
14:52:40 [Ashok]
Sandro sent mail proposing we add both proposals into the spec as features at risk
14:53:02 [Ashok]
... based on implementation proposals we can then decide
14:53:34 [Ashok]
Arnaud: There are other PATCH proposals
14:54:17 [bblfish]
q+
14:54:22 [Arnaud]
ack bblfish
14:54:24 [Ashok]
... is it a good idea to have several proposals in the spec marked as "at risk"
14:55:23 [Ashok]
Henry: With the TURTLE proposal you would have to number the blank nodes ... may require changing the triple store
14:56:10 [Ashok]
Arnaud: If you have a SPARQL engine, the SPARQL-based proposal is easier. If not perhaps the other proposal is simpler
14:57:02 [SteveS]
q+
14:57:04 [bblfish]
that seems ok, if we really have two PATCH formats competing
14:57:28 [Arnaud]
ack steves
14:57:30 [stevebattle5]
q+
14:57:45 [Ashok]
Ted: Not a good solution but the best way to go
14:58:34 [Zakim]
-TallTed
14:58:55 [Ashok]
SteveS: Eric claims the problems Sandro is worrying about don't occur in the wild
14:59:08 [bblfish]
That would be cool
14:59:20 [bblfish]
q+
14:59:26 [Arnaud]
ack steveb
14:59:54 [Ashok]
SteveB: If there is an issue we cannot resolve it should not be in the spec
15:00:06 [Arnaud]
ack bblfish
15:00:19 [Ashok]
Arnaud: That's the status quo ... nothing in the spec yet
15:00:55 [Ashok]
Henry: Perhaps test how easy the 2 options are to implement
15:01:28 [bblfish]
yes: competition: try to make the most elegant version of the SPARQL solution.
15:01:40 [bblfish]
thanks Ashok
15:01:48 [Zakim]
-BartvanLeeuwen
15:01:51 [stevebattle5]
bye
15:01:52 [Zakim]
-svillata
15:01:53 [Zakim]
-bblfish
15:01:54 [Zakim]
-cody
15:01:54 [Zakim]
-JohnArwe
15:01:55 [Zakim]
-Arnaud
15:01:58 [Zakim]
-SteveS
15:01:59 [Zakim]
-Kalpa
15:02:00 [Zakim]
-Ashok_Malhotra
15:02:02 [Zakim]
-stevebattle5
15:02:02 [Arnaud]
trackbot, end meeting
15:02:02 [trackbot]
Zakim, list attendees
15:02:03 [Zakim]
SW_LDP()10:00AM has ended
15:02:03 [Zakim]
Attendees were Arnaud, cody, +1.919.306.aaaa, Ashok_Malhotra, stevebattle5, SteveS, TallTed, JohnArwe, bblfish, BartvanLeeuwen, svillata, Kalpa
15:02:03 [Zakim]
sorry, trackbot, I don't know what conference this is
15:02:10 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
15:02:10 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/09/23-ldp-minutes.html trackbot
15:02:11 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, bye
15:02:11 [RRSAgent]
I see 1 open action item saved in http://www.w3.org/2013/09/23-ldp-actions.rdf :
15:02:11 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: 93 to Can be closed [1]
15:02:11 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/09/23-ldp-irc#T14-11-26