See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 21 October 2013
hi
<scribe> scribe: bblfish
<Arnaud> http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/ldp/2013-10-14
<scribe> Scribe: bblfish
Minutes Approved
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2013Oct/0050.html
summarising the e-mail above
<ericP> iirc, that was antoine's implementation, right?
<betehess> [[ the server [...] SHOULD provide a message in the 4xx response body that provides details about which triples could not be persisted ]]
betehess: should we define a bit more about the body in the 400?
SteveS: does not want to specify this
<JohnArwe> can you give an example of what you might like to see?
that vocab may come out of the rdf validation work.
<JohnArwe> ...what I'm wary of is looking like we're re-defining HTTP, which people are clearly sensitive to.
<Arnaud> Proposal: Accept revised proposal for PUT ignoring triples
<ericP> +1
<betehess> +1
<Ashok> +1
<JohnArwe> +1
<SteveS> +1 I agree with my proposal
<betehess> JohnArwe, I don't really know, I was just wondering :-) do I want to know what triples were at fault? all of them? why? vocabulary? etc.
<TallTed> +1
<sandro> +1
<roger> +1
<Arnaud> Resolvedl: Accept revised proposal for PUT ignoring triples
me: what are the server managed properties?
<Arnaud> Resolved: Accept revised proposal for PUT ignoring triples
<Arnaud> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2013Oct/0060.html
JohnArwe: summarising the above
<Ashok> +1
<Arnaud> Proposal: Accept revised proposal for normative changes
<ericP> +1
<JohnArwe> +1
<roger> +1
<TallTed> +1
<sandro> +1
<betehess> +1
bblfish was asking if the relation names and number on the restrictions would be left open for later discussion
<SteveS> +1
Arnaud: yes
+1
<Arnaud> Resolved: Accept revised proposal for normative changes
Arnaud: Eric, Arnaud, and 3 editors of spec talked to timbl
who is making noise?
who is talking?
<JohnArwe> EricP
EricP: ....
PUT to create new resources
issues of how Options would work... TimBl talked about .well-known
Patch ... too many proposals
who is talking?
<Arnaud> john
JohnArwe: server initiated paging requires 2 round trips. TimBl suggested a new status code which does not require a new round trip.
<JohnArwe> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/default/ldp.html#http-status-code-definitions
JohnArwe: drafted an idea to replace a 303 with a 209
<JohnArwe> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/rev/adfc713130ec
<betehess> I remember an argument I heard once: if the content is humongous anyway, why do we care about a little extra round-trip?
Ashok: ( can you summarise your argument here?)
betehess: in patch you were arguing that there are many small documents
<JohnArwe> @betehess: true for LDP, but as I said TimBL is after the larger LD problem
<ericP> 206 is too specific; it's for returing bytes 389 to 736 of animated GIFs
<Ashok> IU looked at existing sttsus codes to see if we could reuse one of them. The one that looked promising was 206 (partial content)
Arnaud: summary: timbl is happy with the changes we are making. 2 issues a) PATCH wether MUST or SHOULD does not make sense without PATCH format. b) PUT Create c) status code 209
<Ashok> However, as you read further into 206 it requires you to specify a rang (I assume range of bytes) and has some other restrictions. So, I think we need a new code.
<Yves> 206 is used as a response to partial requests (ie: containing a Range)
Arnaud: 209 is being specced for IETF draft
<Ashok> Yes, Yves, that's why I don't think it would work for paging
Issue-81?
<trackbot> Issue-81 -- Confusing membership* predicate names and other possible improvements -- open
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/81
poll: http://www.doodle.com/qf5am2pu89fcyaz2
<sandro> (for me it's laziness / dont care / too busy )
Well I am not too bothered about the naming
Arnaud: fill in poll for Friday
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2013Sep/0041.html
all the proposals are now here: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/LDP_PATCH_Proposals
Arnaud: we now have a number of
proposals. At the F2F we thought we should implement 2
proposals. But now there are too many, we can't have people
implement them all.
... we won't have enough time to get to the final version of
the PATCH in the time required, so we will probably add it
later as a compromise
sandro: worried that this needs to be driven by a deadline. If we had to make a deadline we would probably come to a consensus ( Turtle Patch , or ... )
<betehess> I believe that people have very different approaches here (eg. bnodes can/cannot be skolemized). if we don't make the important choices, we'll never be able to move forward anyway. being given more time to experiment is a good idea in my opinion
<JohnArwe> I thought W3C is a lot stricter about holding to charter dates than in the past - Team Contacts?
Arnaud: ... So we could have a proposal put forward if the deadline is short
SteveS: would like a PATCH format sooner than later, but not sure if it is worth holding ldp 1 up for that
betehess: one should not push for
a proposal if the scope is not discussed first.
... what should be covered by LDP patch, there are different
assumptions what it should do, ...
... some people accept complexity, others don't, ...
Arnaud: yes, the requirements are not clear
<betehess> should we vote on the SHOULD?
<betehess> my opinion after spending time on it: it's too soon to work on PATCH for LDP 1.0
<Arnaud> STRAWPOLL: keep spending time as a WG on finding a patch format that would work for LDP PATCH
<betehess> right, APPEND *is* an interesting operation, and is already implemented
<JohnArwe> trying to understand the question in light of Sandro's question... "spending time as WG" is potentially differnt from the "is patch format on the LDP critical path" question
<betehess> JohnArwe, right, it is not critical for LDP
<JohnArwe> I'm happy to spend (extra, non-crit path) time on patch formats. It would require some soul-searching to say it should be on critical path.
+1 I think if someone has a proposal then that's great. the SPARQL UPDATE subset seems fine to me.
<Ashok> +1
<SteveS> +0 (does +1 mean we affect the delivery date of LDP 1.0? I'm not for that but FOR making progress on a patch solution)
<betehess> +0
<TallTed> +0 (with SteveS)
<betehess> bye
<JohnArwe> +0 (if you prefer, +1 to the earlier +0s)
Arnaud: go to the patch mailing list for discussions on PATCH
<Arnaud> trackbot, end meeting
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.138 of Date: 2013-04-25 13:59:11 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Found Scribe: bblfish Inferring ScribeNick: bblfish Found Scribe: bblfish Inferring ScribeNick: bblfish Default Present: Sandro, Arnaud, JohnArwe, Ashok_Malhotra, Alexandre, bblfish, SteveS, EricP, Roger, TallTed, krp Present: Sandro Arnaud JohnArwe Ashok_Malhotra Alexandre bblfish SteveS EricP Roger TallTed krp Regrets: cody WARNING: No meeting chair found! You should specify the meeting chair like this: <dbooth> Chair: dbooth Found Date: 21 Oct 2013 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2013/10/21-ldp-minutes.html People with action items:[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]