03:01:37 <Arnaud> zakim: make minutes public
03:12:10 <Arnaud> rrsagent, publish minutes
(No events recorded for 10 minutes)
Arnaud Le Hors: rrsagent, publish minutes ←
03:12:10 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/03/15-ldp-minutes.html Arnaud
RRSAgent IRC Bot: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/03/15-ldp-minutes.html Arnaud ←
13:02:22 <Arnaud> trackbot, start meeting
(No events recorded for 590 minutes)
Arnaud Le Hors: trackbot, start meeting ←
13:02:24 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, make logs public ←
13:02:26 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be LDP
Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, this will be LDP ←
13:02:26 <Zakim> ok, trackbot, I see SW_LDP(F2F)8:30AM already started
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, trackbot, I see SW_LDP(F2F)8:30AM already started ←
13:02:27 <trackbot> Meeting: Linked Data Platform (LDP) Working Group Teleconference
13:02:27 <trackbot> Date: 15 March 2013
13:12:12 <Arnaud> scribe: cody
(No events recorded for 9 minutes)
(Scribe set to Cody Burleson)
13:12:15 <Arnaud> chair: Arnaud
13:13:36 <cody> topic: Next face to face
13:14:33 <Zakim> +WG-meeting
Zakim IRC Bot: +WG-meeting ←
<cody> arnaud: how long is the last call period?
Arnaud Le Hors: how long is the last call period? ←
13:15:01 <cody> davidwood: last call period is minimum 3 weeks
David Wood: last call period is minimum 3 weeks ←
13:15:11 <davidwood1> http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#last-call
David Wood: http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#last-call ←
13:16:02 <cody> 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.
Arnaud Le Hors: 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 <cody> … first week of June is Semtech in San Fran
… first week of June is Semtech in San Fran ←
13:16:38 <cody> … week of 3rd of June is out
… week of 3rd of June is out ←
13:17:02 <cody> … one possibility: aim for second week of June
… one possibility: aim for second week of June ←
13:17:32 <bblfish> I don't really hear anything. Arnaud is very distant, and there is background noise.
Henry Story: I don't really hear anything. Arnaud is very distant, and there is background noise. ←
13:17:49 <cody> … discussing the WHERE
… discussing the WHERE ←
13:18:03 <cody> sandro: you're all welcome to come back here (M.I.T.)
Sandro Hawke: you're all welcome to come back here (M.I.T.) ←
13:19:16 <cody> arnaud: ashok agreed to host in New York, but others complained that it's expensive
Arnaud Le Hors: ashok agreed to host in New York, but others complained that it's expensive ←
13:20:12 <cody> mesteban: 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.
Miguel Esteban Gutiérrez: 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. ←
13:22:28 <bblfish> ah the noise is better now
Henry Story: ah the noise is better now ←
13:22:35 <cody> kevin: another thing to avoid is SWC which is like May 26
Kevin Page: another thing to avoid is SWC which is like May 26 ←
13:22:48 <bblfish> I can hear Arnaud and others discussing W3C AC meeting...
Henry Story: I can hear Arnaud and others discussing W3C AC meeting... ←
13:23:55 <cody> arnaud: if we want to give buffer with our last call, should we aim for a bit later in June?
Arnaud Le Hors: if we want to give buffer with our last call, should we aim for a bit later in June? ←
13:24:03 <cody> sandro: the week of July 8th
Sandro Hawke: the week of July 8th ←
13:24:40 <bblfish> The last call is already coming up?
Henry Story: The last call is already coming up? ←
13:24:47 <davidwood> yes
David Wood: yes ←
13:24:58 <bblfish> I thought this project was a 3 year project
Henry Story: I thought this project was a 3 year project ←
13:25:07 <bblfish> and we were only in the first year
Henry Story: and we were only in the first year ←
13:25:33 <mesteban> q+
Miguel Esteban Gutiérrez: q+ ←
13:27:13 <cody> sandro: last week of June is European Sem Web conference
Sandro Hawke: last week of June is European Sem Web conference ←
13:27:35 <cody> arnaud: I'm just wondering about May 20th
Arnaud Le Hors: I'm just wondering about May 20th ←
13:27:54 <mesteban> No, the ESWC is the last week of May.
Miguel Esteban Gutiérrez: No, the ESWC is the last week of May. ←
13:28:54 <cody> arnaud: Except WWW conference is the week before
Arnaud Le Hors: Except WWW conference is the week before ←
13:29:20 <cody> ashok: isn't that a bit early?
Ashok Malhotra: isn't that a bit early? ←
13:29:38 <cody> steves: I think it makes sense in this case, just to try to get to last call
Steve Speicher: I think it makes sense in this case, just to try to get to last call ←
13:30:13 <cody> arnaud: Either the week of 10th of June or week of 17th of June
Arnaud Le Hors: Either the week of 10th of June or week of 17th of June ←
13:30:53 <cody> 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)
Arnaud Le Hors: 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) ←
13:31:50 <cody> F2F3 candidate locations, Madrid, London, or Boston (team favors that order), but arguing travel budgets
F2F3 candidate locations, Madrid, London, or Boston (team favors that order), but arguing travel budgets ←
13:32:05 <cody> davidwood: let's do a straw poll
David Wood: let's do a straw poll ←
13:32:14 <bblfish> the noise has come back.
Henry Story: the noise has come back. ←
13:32:24 <Arnaud> strawpoll: 1) madrid, 2) london, 3) boston
STRAWPOLL: 1) madrid, 2) london, 3) boston ←
13:32:42 <ericP> 1 0 -1
Eric Prud'hommeaux: 1 0 -1 ←
13:32:42 <bblfish> +1 +1 -0.33333
Henry Story: +1 +1 -0.33333 ←
13:32:45 <TallTed> -1, -1, +1
Ted Thibodeau: -1, -1, +1 ←
13:32:45 <Ashok> 0,0,1
Ashok Malhotra: 0,0,1 ←
13:32:49 <SteveS> +1, +1, +1
Steve Speicher: +1, +1, +1 ←
13:32:50 <sandro> -1 -1 +1
Sandro Hawke: -1 -1 +1 ←
13:32:51 <cygri> +0.5 +1 0
Richard Cyganiak: +0.5 +1 0 ←
13:32:52 <davidwood> -1 −1 +1
David Wood: -1 −1 +1 ←
13:32:55 <JohnArwe> +1 +1 +1
13:32:58 <roger> +1, +1, +1
Roger Menday: +1, +1, +1 ←
13:32:59 <cody> cody: +0,+0,+1
Cody Burleson: +0,+0,+1 ←
13:33:14 <bblfish> ok
Henry Story: ok ←
13:33:15 <SteveBattle> +1, +1, 0
Steve Battle: +1, +1, 0 ←
13:33:27 <nmihindu> +1 0 -1
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: +1 0 -1 ←
13:33:33 <mesteban> +1, +1, 0
Miguel Esteban Gutiérrez: +1, +1, 0 ←
13:33:33 <bblfish> I hear now.
Henry Story: I hear now. ←
13:33:46 <bblfish> q+
Henry Story: q+ ←
13:33:52 <mesteban> q-
Miguel Esteban Gutiérrez: q- ←
13:33:54 <bblfish> that works
Henry Story: that works ←
13:34:13 <sandro> RRSAgent, pointer?
Sandro Hawke: RRSAgent, pointer? ←
13:34:13 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2013/03/15-ldp-irc#T13-34-13
RRSAgent IRC Bot: See http://www.w3.org/2013/03/15-ldp-irc#T13-34-13 ←
13:34:18 <Arnaud> ack bblfish
Arnaud Le Hors: ack bblfish ←
13:34:47 <bblfish> I'll check the charter
Henry Story: I'll check the charter ←
13:34:48 <cody> arnaud: it is not a 3 year project; we're chartered for 2 years
Arnaud Le Hors: it is not a 3 year project; we're chartered for 2 years ←
13:35:34 <davidwood> Charter: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/charter
David Wood: Charter: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/charter ←
13:35:38 <Arnaud> 0 +1 +1
Arnaud Le Hors: 0 +1 +1 ←
13:35:48 <davidwood> 2012-06
David Wood: 2012-06 ←
13:35:48 <davidwood> F2F3
David Wood: F2F3 ←
13:35:48 <davidwood> Face-to-face meeting, if needed
David Wood: Face-to-face meeting, if needed ←
13:37:20 <cody> arnaud: OK, we'll leave it at that for now. We have proposed dates, locations, and a general straw poll
Arnaud Le Hors: OK, we'll leave it at that for now. We have proposed dates, locations, and a general straw poll ←
13:37:40 <cody> topic: LDP Specification - Pending Issues (continues)
13:38:30 <cody> arnaud: technically we don't HAVE to take public comments into account at this point, but I think it is wise to deal with them sooner, rather than later.
Arnaud Le Hors: technically we don't HAVE to take public comments into account at this point, but I think it is wise to deal with them sooner, rather than later. ←
13:39:08 <cody> … need to figure out how we want to address the comments. davaidwood, one of your colleagues, for example, submitted several
… need to figure out how we want to address the comments. davidwood, one of your colleagues, for example, submitted several ←
13:39:44 <cygri> q+
Richard Cyganiak: q+ ←
13:40:08 <cygri> q-
Richard Cyganiak: q- ←
13:40:47 <cody> davidwood: somebody needs to get back to James formally, in the working group, and say that we acknowledge the comments
David Wood: somebody needs to get back to James formally, in the working group, and say that we acknowledge the comments ←
13:41:02 <cody> … I can do that. I'm sure Jame's perspective is similar to mine.
… I can do that. I'm sure Jame's perspective is similar to mine. ←
13:41:29 <cody> sandro: do we want to start tracking comments now? lc tracker?
Sandro Hawke: do we want to start tracking comments now? lc tracker? ←
13:41:45 <cody> … it's a comment tracker
… it's a comment tracker ←
13:41:46 <bblfish> q+
Henry Story: q+ ←
13:43:22 <bblfish> q-
Henry Story: q- ←
13:43:27 <JohnArwe> s/davaidwood/davidwood/
13:43:46 <cygri> q+
Richard Cyganiak: q+ ←
13:45:11 <Arnaud> ack cygri
Arnaud Le Hors: ack cygri ←
13:45:58 <bblfish> Is someone scribing cygri's question because I did not hear what he said
Henry Story: Is someone scribing cygri's question because I did not hear what he said ←
13:45:59 <cody> cygri: would be good to report on how we tried to make sense of some of the terminology issues at dinner last night
Richard Cyganiak: 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 <bblfish> q+
Henry Story: q+ ←
13:46:39 <cody> cygri: I don't know that we made consensus amongst ourselves, though
Richard Cyganiak: I don't know that we made consensus amongst ourselves, though ←
13:47:03 <cody> … What we talked about can be lumped under ISSUE 37 (the model)
… What we talked about can be lumped under ISSUE-37 (the model) ←
13:48:00 <cody> … 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
… 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 <Arnaud> ack bblfish
Arnaud Le Hors: ack bblfish ←
13:48:18 <bblfish> Issue-52
13:48:18 <trackbot> ISSUE-52 -- base -- raised
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-52 -- base -- raised ←
13:48:18 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/52
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/52 ←
13:49:17 <cody> arnaud: lets talk about the issues we'd like to talk about today first, then we can sort out priority
Arnaud Le Hors: lets talk about the issues we'd like to talk about today first, then we can sort out priority ←
13:49:32 <cody> … there is the one on batch versus patch
… there is the one on batch versus patch ←
13:49:36 <cody> … we had binary
… we had binary ←
13:49:39 <cody> … and model
… and model ←
13:49:43 <cody> … missing any?
… missing any? ←
13:50:08 <cody> stevebattle: issue 50 (one of henry's)
Steve Battle: ISSUE-50 (one of henry's) ←
13:50:56 <SteveBattle> issue-50
13:50:56 <trackbot> ISSUE-50 -- Intuitive Containers: better support for relative URIs -- open
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-50 -- Intuitive Containers: better support for relative URIs -- open ←
13:50:56 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/50
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/50 ←
13:51:05 <cody> 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.
Arnaud Le Hors: 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. ←
<cody> subtopic: ISSUE-33: Pagination for non-container resources
13:51:16 <cody> … Roger feels we rushed that
… Roger feels we rushed that ←
13:51:23 <cody> … ISSUE 33
13:51:30 <SteveS> ISSUE-33 ?
13:51:30 <trackbot> ISSUE-33 -- Pagination for non-container resources -- closed
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-33 -- Pagination for non-container resources -- closed ←
13:51:30 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/33
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/33 ←
13:52:03 <cody> … Roger, is there anything you want to tell us about this issue to help us reconsider.
… Roger, is there anything you want to tell us about this issue to help us reconsider. ←
13:52:25 <SteveS> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/meeting/2013-03-14#resolution_1
Steve Speicher: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/meeting/2013-03-14#resolution_1 ←
13:52:27 <cody> … Have you slept on it?
… Have you slept on it? ←
13:53:26 <cody> roger: it seems that a lot of our issues, not just the pagination (update or patch, or for creation issues) ...
Roger Menday: it seems that a lot of our issues, not just the pagination (update or patch, or for creation issues) ... ←
13:54:00 <SteveBattle> q+
Steve Battle: q+ ←
13:54:25 <cody> scribe is not yet understanding roger's point (hold on)
scribe is not yet understanding roger's point (hold on) ←
13:54:48 <Arnaud> ack steveb
Arnaud Le Hors: ack steveb ←
13:56:14 <cody> steves: post to add. We closed an issue a few days ago to say that we wouldn't do that
Steve Speicher: post to add. We closed an issue a few days ago to say that we wouldn't do that ←
13:56:27 <SteveBattle> The example is about POSTing the literal string "Mary" to Peter; how would this generalize to other datatypes?
Steve Battle: The example is about POSTing the literal string "Mary" to Peter; how would this generalize to other datatypes? ←
13:56:56 <SteveBattle> q+
Steve Battle: q+ ←
13:59:06 <cody> 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
Roger Menday: 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 <cody> arnaud: how is that telling me that the decision we made yesterday is not a good one?
Arnaud Le Hors: how is that telling me that the decision we made yesterday is not a good one? ←
13:59:51 <cody> roger: yeah - on face value it looks kind of the same
Roger Menday: yeah - on face value it looks kind of the same ←
13:59:54 <Ashok> q+
Ashok Malhotra: q+ ←
13:59:58 <Arnaud> ack steveb
Arnaud Le Hors: ack steveb ←
14:00:45 <cody> tallted: updates could different if you've paginated or haven't paginated
Ted Thibodeau: updates could different if you've paginated or haven't paginated ←
14:01:11 <cody> arnaud: are we talking about robust pagination, which we have another issue for?
Arnaud Le Hors: are we talking about robust pagination, which we have another issue for? ←
14:01:41 <cody> … still trying to figure out how they are linked together
… still trying to figure out how they are linked together ←
14:02:15 <cody> ted: it will benefit us if richard could summarize the discussion last night
Ted Thibodeau: it will benefit us if richard could summarize the discussion last night ←
14:02:21 <Arnaud> ack ashok
Arnaud Le Hors: ack ashok ←
14:03:09 <JohnArwe> q+
14:03:22 <JohnArwe> q-
14:03:33 <cody> arnaud: agree - we need a debrief of last night
Arnaud Le Hors: agree - we need a debrief of last night ←
14:04:06 <cody> … lets switch gears, forget ISSUE 33 for now, and discuss the informal break-out session from last night
… lets switch gears, forget ISSUE-33 for now, and discuss the informal break-out session from last night ←
14:04:23 <cody> subtopic: ISSUE-37: What is the LDP data model and the LDP interaction model?
14:03:54 <cygri> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/User:Rcygania2/Richard%27s_LDP_101
Richard Cyganiak: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/User:Rcygania2/Richard%27s_LDP_101 ←
14:04:41 <cody> cygr: my way of explaining how LDP works
Richard Cyganiak: my way of explaining how LDP works ←
14:04:47 <cody> … LDP has 2 parts to it:
… LDP has 2 parts to it: ←
14:06:04 <cody> documented in wiki "The two things that LDP does"
documented in wiki "The two things that LDP does" ←
14:06:51 <cody> … Value sets : a set of triples with the same subject, same predicate, different object
… Value sets : a set of triples with the same subject, same predicate, different object ←
14:07:21 <cody> … let's not get hung up on the term though
… let's not get hung up on the term though ←
14:07:30 <cody> … you could call it a set of membership triples
… you could call it a set of membership triples ←
14:07:44 <cody> … there is also the inverse
… there is also the inverse ←
14:07:55 <cody> … same predicate, same object, but different subject
… same predicate, same object, but different subject ←
14:08:27 <cody> … LDP names value sets with an IRI
… LDP names value sets with an IRI ←
14:08:50 <cody> … and can be interacted with in various ways using HTTP.
… and can be interacted with in various ways using HTTP. ←
14:09:45 <bblfish> What is the point of making this restriction?
Henry Story: What is the point of making this restriction? ←
14:10:25 <bblfish> I am assuming that the notion of triple set is being introduced in order to restrict what should go in an LDPR...
Henry Story: I am worried that the notion of triple set is being introduced in order to restrict what should go in an LDPR... ←
14:10:48 <bblfish> s/assuming/worried/
14:10:51 <cody> … /foo/p1 s the IRI for a Value Set. If you do a GET on that URL, you'll get back those 3 triples
… /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 <roger> in my opinion it is being introduced to *partition* a LDPR
Roger Menday: in my opinion it is being introduced to *partition* a LDPR ←
14:11:30 <cody> … but the URI of the Value Set is NOT the subject in the triples (unless maybe in some rare special cases)
… but the URI of the Value Set is NOT the subject in the triples (unless maybe in some rare special cases) ←
14:11:33 <bblfish> to partition it into what?
Henry Story: to partition it into what? ←
14:11:53 <roger> into groupings according to predicate names
Roger Menday: into groupings according to predicate names ←
14:11:56 <bblfish> is this for Container membership?
Henry Story: is this for Pagination partition membership? ←
14:11:59 <cody> tallted: imagine that each one of those 3 positions is filled with a full URI
Ted Thibodeau: imagine that each one of those 3 positions is filled with a full URI ←
14:12:08 <bblfish> s/Container/Pagination partition/
14:12:38 <cody> cygri: the subject you have in the value sets is not the same as the URI of the value set
Richard Cyganiak: the subject you have in the value sets is not the same as the URI of the value set ←
14:13:08 <cody> … the subject uri could be anything. It doesn't matter at all what the subject URI is (for this value et thing)
… 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 <bblfish> Yes, I still don't know why this concept is being introduced. Did I miss something?
Henry Story: Yes, I still don't know why this concept is being introduced. Did I miss something? ←
14:14:26 <cody> … so in our example where the subject is foo, there could be other value sets that have foo as the subject
… so in our example where the subject is foo, there could be other value sets that have foo as the subject ←
14:15:55 <cody> … 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
… 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 ←
14:16:24 <cody> … Value Set is my current conceptual replacement for what we've been calling Container
… Value Set is my current conceptual replacement for what we've been calling Container ←
14:16:51 <Ashok> q+
Ashok Malhotra: q+ ←
14:17:01 <cody> … the spec says you can PUT and PATCH to put any triples into this container; I don't see how that's helpful.
… 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 <Arnaud> ack ashok
Arnaud Le Hors: ack ashok ←
14:18:16 <cody> ashok: My worry is that if I want to create a container that has apples and oranges...
Ashok Malhotra: My worry is that if I want to create a container that has apples and oranges... ←
14:18:43 <cody> cygri: VS has single subject, single predicate. If you want a diff predicate, that's a diff value set
Richard Cyganiak: VS has single subject, single predicate. If you want a diff predicate, that's a diff value set ←
14:18:55 <cody> tallted: apples and oranges are objects, not predicates
Ted Thibodeau: apples and oranges are objects, not predicates ←
14:20:17 <cody> johnarwe: membership triples in a container have same subject and predicate (been in the spec since beginning)
John Arwe: membership triples in a container have same subject and predicate (been in the spec since beginning) ←
14:20:45 <cody> ashok: I'm hung up on the thing that the subject and predicate have to be the same in the collection
Ashok Malhotra: I'm hung up on the thing that the subject and predicate have to be the same in the collection ←
14:21:11 <cody> sandro: thats a normal RDF graph, this is a special kind of RDF graph that is more constrained
Sandro Hawke: thats a normal RDF graph, this is a special kind of RDF graph that is more constrained ←
14:21:28 <cody> cygri: DELETE > two forms
Richard Cyganiak: DELETE > two forms ←
14:22:13 <bblfish> cygri wants to turn RDF into a plain OO system.
Henry Story: cygri wants to turn RDF into a plain OO system. ←
14:22:39 <bblfish> You can see that he is thinking of URLs as objects with the methods and varialbes as the relations
Henry Story: You can see that he is thinking of URLs as objects with the methods and varialbes as the relations ←
14:23:33 <SteveBattle> q+
Steve Battle: q+ ←
14:23:47 <bblfish> But this removes a lot of flexibility from the system.
Henry Story: But this removes a lot of flexibility from the system. ←
14:24:03 <cody> cygri: and the third thing is pagination
Richard Cyganiak: and the third thing is pagination ←
14:24:20 <cody> … you can follow a next pointer to get more triples in the value set
… you can follow a next pointer to get more triples in the value set ←
14:25:03 <cody> … Roger wants to add a single member to a value set by posting to a URI
… Roger wants to add a single member to a value set by posting to a URI ←
14:26:04 <Arnaud> ack steveb
Arnaud Le Hors: ack steveb ←
14:26:18 <roger> … also wants to do dynamic introspection of what is possible with a value set
Roger Menday: … also wants to do dynamic introspection of what is possible with a value set ←
14:26:47 <nmihindu> +q
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: +q ←
14:28:24 <Arnaud> ack nmihindu
Arnaud Le Hors: ack nmihindu ←
14:29:39 <SteveBattle> If I have value-set <foo/p3> I'm still unsure about what I can do on <foo>
Steve Battle: If I have value-set <foo/p3> I'm still unsure about what I can do on <foo> ←
14:30:00 <cody> cygri: in order to remove single member from a container in current spec, the only way is using PUT or PATCH
Richard Cyganiak: in order to remove single member from a container in current spec, the only way is using PUT or PATCH ←
14:31:22 <SteveBattle> q+
Steve Battle: q+ ←
14:31:46 <cody> nandana: where does it differ from current spec, except for the naming changes?
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: where does it differ from current spec, except for the naming changes? ←
14:32:05 <cody> cygri: I'm folding in some changes I'd like to see in paging, but that's a separate issue.
Richard Cyganiak: I'm folding in some changes I'd like to see in paging, but that's a separate issue. ←
14:32:14 <cody> … what I'm trying to make clear is that
… what I'm trying to make clear is that ←
14:32:28 <cody> … there is a distinction between this subject resource and the Value Set
… there is a distinction between this subject resource and the Value Set ←
14:32:50 <cody> … by using the term Container, it doesn't make it mentally easy to keep those two things apart
… by using the term Container, it doesn't make it mentally easy to keep those two things apart ←
14:33:23 <bblfish> ?
Henry Story: ? ←
14:33:56 <Arnaud> ack steveb
Arnaud Le Hors: ack steveb ←
14:34:09 <JohnArwe> what is your ? henry
John Arwe: what is your ? henry ←
14:34:24 <bblfish> I don't understand where this is going.
Henry Story: I don't understand where this is going. ←
14:34:34 <cody> … this is just describing the current spec in different words
… this is just describing the current spec in different words ←
14:34:42 <cody> arnaud: there are differences, that's not true
Arnaud Le Hors: there are differences, that's not true ←
14:34:55 <cody> cygri: with the exception of paging, I don't think so
Richard Cyganiak: with the exception of paging, I don't think so ←
14:35:09 <SteveBattle> Do I get RDF if I do a GET on a value-set? (Yes)
Steve Battle: Do I get RDF if I do a GET on a value-set? (Yes) ←
14:36:00 <SteveBattle> If I want to delete a single triple from a value set, I still have to do a PUT or PATCH? (still unanswered)
Steve Battle: 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 <JohnArwe> 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.
Henry Story: 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. [ Scribe Assist by John Arwe ] ←
14:37:04 <JohnArwe> ... 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.
John Arwe: ... 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 <cody> … GET on a value set also gives some metadata. (see Metadata triples in value sets)
… GET on a value set also gives some metadata. (see Metadata triples in value sets) ←
14:37:52 <cody> … GET on foo, you get some RDF and the met data triples about any value sets that use foo
… GET on foo, you get some RDF and the met data triples about any value sets that use foo ←
14:37:55 <bblfish> there seems to be a suggestion that a LDPR should only contian one value set.
Henry Story: there seems to be a suggestion that a LDPR should only contian one value set. ←
14:38:08 <JohnArwe> ... 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.
John Arwe: ... 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 <TallTed> q+
Ted Thibodeau: q+ ←
14:38:30 <Arnaud> ack tallted
Arnaud Le Hors: ack tallted ←
14:38:59 <JohnArwe> 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"
John Arwe: 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 <Ashok> q+
Ashok Malhotra: q+ ←
14:39:57 <bblfish> <> a foaf:PersonalProfileDocument;
Henry Story: <> a foaf:PersonalProfileDocument; ←
14:39:57 <bblfish> foaf:primaryTopic <#me> .
Henry Story: foaf:primaryTopic <#me> . ←
14:39:57 <bblfish> <#me> a foaf:Person…
Henry Story: <#me> a foaf:Person… ←
14:39:58 <bblfish> foaf:knows [ = <../jack#me>; foaf:name "Joe" ]…
Henry Story: foaf:knows [ = <../jack#me>; foaf:name "Joe" ]… ←
14:40:00 <bblfish> How many value sets in there. How does this help?
Henry Story: How many value sets in there. How does this help? ←
14:40:02 <SteveBattle> q+
Steve Battle: q+ ←
14:40:25 <cody> … we have ability distinguish delete and recessive delete in the metadata
… we have ability distinguish delete and recessive delete in the metadata ←
14:40:34 <JohnArwe> how many containers are in your sample henry?
John Arwe: how many containers are in your sample henry? ←
14:40:39 <cody> sandro: essentially a domain-specific LDPR
Sandro Hawke: essentially a domain-specific LDPR ←
14:40:59 <bblfish> is this restricted to containers?
Henry Story: is this restricted to containers? ←
14:41:43 <cody> cygri: one of these containers exists purely for managing the values of a certain property.
Richard Cyganiak: one of these containers exists purely for managing the values of a certain property. ←
14:42:07 <SteveBattle> q-
Steve Battle: q- ←
14:42:20 <roger> i.e. an LDPC is not a domain resource
Roger Menday: i.e. an LDPC is not a domain resource ←
14:42:40 <bblfish> <> a ldp:Container;
Henry Story: <> a ldp:Container; ←
14:42:40 <bblfish> :member [ = <card>; :title "Foaf Profile"; author [ = <jack>; foaf:name "Jack"; ] ] .
Henry Story: :member [ = <card>; :title "Foaf Profile"; author [ = <jack>; foaf:name "Jack"; ] ] . ←
14:43:08 <cody> … container: managing the resource - not really a domain object. It exist in order to provide ability to add, remove, manipulate, page through members
… 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 <JohnArwe> 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
John Arwe: 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 <Arnaud> ack ashok
Arnaud Le Hors: ack ashok ←
14:43:36 <SteveBattle> Can someone answer my PUT/PATCH question, "To change a value-set I still have to use PUT/PATCH?"
Steve Battle: Can someone answer my PUT/PATCH question, "To change a value-set I still have to use PUT/PATCH?" ←
14:44:10 <cody> ashok: we agreed containers can have containers within them
Ashok Malhotra: we agreed containers can have containers within them ←
14:44:38 <cody> … we've got to be able to put a value set in a value set
… we've got to be able to put a value set in a value set ←
14:44:42 <JohnArwe> SB, I think it's on "have to" that differences might emerge. can you? yes.
John Arwe: SB, I think it's on "have to" that differences might emerge. can you? yes. ←
14:44:45 <bblfish> 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.
Henry Story: 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 <cody> cygri: there's nothing that stops you from using the URI of another Value Set
Richard Cyganiak: there's nothing that stops you from using the URI of another Value Set ←
14:45:13 <cody> stevebattle: to modify a value set do I still use PUT and PATCH?
Steve Battle: to modify a value set do I still use PUT and PATCH? ←
14:46:07 <JohnArwe> 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)
John Arwe: 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 <bblfish> Yes, but I don't see that you need restrictions to value sets.
Henry Story: Yes, but I don't see that you need restrictions to value sets. ←
14:46:51 <bblfish> graphs are good enough
Henry Story: graphs are good enough ←
14:47:04 <cody> tallted: this is the result of all of our conversation last night; doesn't lay the groundwork we began with. We discussed...
Ted Thibodeau: this is the result of all of our conversation last night; doesn't lay the groundwork we began with. We discussed... ←
14:47:27 <JohnArwe> q+
14:47:30 <cody> … current container: a factory, an enumerator, a modifier (including delete)
… current container: a factory, an enumerator, a modifier (including delete) ←
14:48:29 <bblfish> you want a new HTTP DELETE method?
Henry Story: you want a new HTTP DELETE method? ←
14:48:38 <bblfish> RECURSIVE-DELETE ?
Henry Story: RECURSIVE-DELETE ? ←
14:48:43 <Arnaud> ack john
Arnaud Le Hors: ack john ←
14:51:11 <bblfish> If you don't want a new HTTP delete method, then you want something like factory methods.
Henry Story: If you don't want a new HTTP delete method, then you want something like factory methods. ←
14:51:20 <JohnArwe> 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.
John Arwe: 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 <bblfish> ok.
Henry Story: ok. ←
14:53:05 <JohnArwe> ...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
John Arwe: ...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 <SteveBattle> DELETE <URI>?recursively ?
Steve Battle: DELETE <URI>?recursively ? ←
14:55:39 <SteveBattle> (hoping zakim doesn't try to execute that!)
Steve Battle: (hoping zakim doesn't try to execute that!) ←
15:06:09 <Arnaud> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/User:Rcygania2/Richard%27s_LDP_101
(No events recorded for 10 minutes)
Arnaud Le Hors: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/User:Rcygania2/Richard%27s_LDP_101 ←
15:08:05 <roger> arnaud: thanks cygri for the report
Arnaud Le Hors: thanks cygri for the report [ Scribe Assist by Roger Menday ] ←
15:08:12 <JohnArwe> Scribe: Roger
(Scribe set to Roger Menday)
15:09:18 <roger> arnaud: wants to know what we can do with value-sets going forward
Arnaud Le Hors: wants to know what we can do with value-sets going forward ←
15:12:06 <davidwood> q+ to ask Richard what a "REST-style container" is
David Wood: q+ to ask Richard what a "REST-style container" is ←
15:12:15 <roger> arnaud: should the naming difference (container vs. value set) be carried forward ?
Arnaud Le Hors: should the naming difference (container vs. value set) be carried forward ? ←
15:13:10 <davidwood> +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.")
David Wood: +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.") ←
15:15:19 <Arnaud> ack david
Arnaud Le Hors: ack david ←
15:15:19 <Zakim> davidwood, you wanted to ask Richard what a "REST-style container" is
Zakim IRC Bot: davidwood, you wanted to ask Richard what a "REST-style container" is ←
15:15:34 <roger> arnaud: not everyone liked the filesystem analogy
Arnaud Le Hors: not everyone liked the filesystem analogy ←
15:17:03 <roger> cygri: a REST-style container is something you post to create something new
Richard Cyganiak: a REST-style container is something you post to create something new ←
15:17:58 <JohnArwe> Note: not all "REST-style containers" support create, some are read/only
John Arwe: Note: not all "REST-style containers" support create, some are read/only ←
15:18:44 <roger> yes, but, there are not part of the 'model' as such, they are there to support interaction.
yes, but, there are not part of the 'model' as such, they are there to support interaction. ←
15:20:14 <roger> SteveS: is there a link from Steve to his friends value-set?
Steve Speicher: is there a link from Steve to his friends value-set? ←
15:20:27 <roger> +q
+q ←
15:21:40 <SteveBattle> q+
Steve Battle: q+ ←
15:22:37 <Zakim> -bblfish
Zakim IRC Bot: -bblfish ←
15:22:58 <Arnaud> ack roger
Arnaud Le Hors: ack roger ←
15:23:40 <JohnArwe> roger: issue-51 was exactly that issue - how to find container from member
Roger Menday: ISSUE-51 was exactly that issue - how to find container from member [ Scribe Assist by John Arwe ] ←
15:23:41 <Zakim> +bblfish
Zakim IRC Bot: +bblfish ←
15:23:53 <bblfish> Issue-51?
15:23:53 <trackbot> ISSUE-51 -- Linking from a Resource to its Containers (aka 'backlinks') -- raised
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-51 -- Linking from a Resource to its Containers (aka 'backlinks') -- raised ←
15:23:53 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/51
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/51 ←
15:24:34 <Arnaud> ack steveb
Arnaud Le Hors: ack steveb ←
15:25:10 <JohnArwe> steve B?
15:25:35 <Ashok> q+
Ashok Malhotra: q+ ←
15:25:42 <roger> roger: the addition to issue 51 is how to discover an empty value-set - to bootstrap it's manipulation
Roger Menday: the addition to ISSUE-51 is how to discover an empty value-set - to bootstrap it's manipulation ←
15:26:06 <Arnaud> ack ashok
Arnaud Le Hors: ack ashok ←
15:26:28 <SteveBattle> q+
Steve Battle: q+ ←
15:26:43 <roger> ashok: if you access Steve you should get URI to each of its value-sets, right ?
Ashok Malhotra: if you access Steve you should get URI to each of its value-sets, right ? ←
15:28:19 <roger> +q
+q ←
15:29:29 <roger> arnald: where is the factory ?
Arnaud Le Hors: where is the factory ? ←
15:29:50 <Arnaud> ack steveb
Arnaud Le Hors: ack steveb ←
15:30:57 <TallTed> hopefuly plausible example:
Ted Thibodeau: hopefuly plausible example: ←
15:30:57 <TallTed> valueSet: http://example.com/TedKnows
Ted Thibodeau: valueSet: http://example.com/TedKnows ←
15:30:57 <TallTed> membershipSubject: http://id.myopenlink.net/dataspace/person/tthibodeau
Ted Thibodeau: membershipSubject: http://id.myopenlink.net/dataspace/person/tthibodeau ←
15:30:57 <TallTed> membershipPredicate: foaf:knows
Ted Thibodeau: membershipPredicate: foaf:knows ←
15:30:57 <TallTed> to add/change/delete
Ted Thibodeau: to add/change/delete ←
15:30:58 <TallTed> - MAY PUT/PATCH/POST to http://example.com/TedKnows
Ted Thibodeau: - MAY PUT/PATCH/POST to http://example.com/TedKnows ←
15:31:00 <TallTed> - MAY PATCH/POST to http://id.myopenlink.net/dataspace/person/tthibodeau
Ted Thibodeau: - MAY PATCH/POST to http://id.myopenlink.net/dataspace/person/tthibodeau ←
15:31:02 <TallTed> - MAY but SHOULD NOT PUT to http://id.myopenlink.net/dataspace/person/tthibodeau
Ted Thibodeau: - MAY but SHOULD NOT PUT to http://id.myopenlink.net/dataspace/person/tthibodeau ←
15:31:47 <TallTed> s/arnald:/arnaud:/
15:31:51 <Arnaud> ack roger
Arnaud Le Hors: ack roger ←
15:33:25 <SteveBattle> So, we can only use a value set where that has previously set up using a membership-predicate. We can't use value sets on any arbitrary property.
Steve Battle: So, we can only use a value set where that has previously set up using a membership-predicate. We can't use value sets on any arbitrary property. ←
15:33:29 <SteveS> q+
Steve Speicher: q+ ←
15:33:44 <Arnaud> ack steves
Arnaud Le Hors: ack steves ←
15:33:57 <JohnArwe> q+
15:34:15 <Arnaud> ack john
Arnaud Le Hors: ack john ←
15:34:43 <davidwood> I have added the following issues as requested by the chair:
David Wood: I have added the following issues as requested by the chair: ←
15:34:43 <davidwood> https://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/53
David Wood: https://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/53 ←
15:34:43 <davidwood> https://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/54
David Wood: https://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/54 ←
15:34:43 <davidwood> https://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/55
David Wood: https://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/55 ←
15:34:43 <davidwood> https://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/56
David Wood: https://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/56 ←
15:34:43 <davidwood>
15:34:43 <davidwood> They were all based on comments made by James Leigh on the public comments mailing list.
David Wood: They were all based on comments made by James Leigh on the public comments mailing list. ←
15:35:01 <roger> @SteveBattle - unless you use some kind of lazy creation process and some kind of template
@SteveBattle - unless you use some kind of lazy creation process and some kind of template ←
15:35:35 <bblfish> perhaps this microphone is not working as well as what we had yesterday.
Henry Story: perhaps this microphone is not working as well as what we had yesterday. ←
15:35:41 <SteveBattle> I still don't get how Roger's back-links are supported by this.
Steve Battle: I still don't get how Roger's back-links are supported by this. ←
15:36:09 <roger> Where there are changes to the text according to the discussions of this morning, this should be clearly visible.
Where there are changes to the text according to the discussions of this morning, this should be clearly visible. ←
15:36:22 <roger> they are not bloody back-links :)
they are not bloody back-links :) ←
15:37:23 <SteveBattle> How do I discover the 'container'/value-set from a member?
Steve Battle: How do I discover the 'container'/value-set from a member? ←
15:38:07 <JohnArwe> preference from several for editors to create high level list of places where the wiki text is adapted as it is incorporated as a resolution to issue-37
John Arwe: preference from several for editors to create high level list of places where the wiki text is adapted as it is incorporated as a resolution to ISSUE-37 ←
15:39:04 <roger> @SteveB: either as 1. explicit links for each VS, or 2. via some kind of templated link.
@SteveB: either as 1. explicit links for each VS, or 2. via some kind of templated link. ←
15:39:17 <roger> Arwe: is this a potential resolution to issue 37 ?
John Arwe: is this a potential resolution to ISSUE-37 ? ←
<roger> Arnaud: yes but I'd rather leave it open for now until people have a chance to review the text in the spec
Arnaud Le Hors: yes but I'd rather leave it open for now until people have a chance to review the text in the spec ←
15:39:21 <bblfish> can someone put the original microphone back. I heard the room better yesterday.
Henry Story: can someone put the original microphone back. I heard the room better yesterday. ←
15:39:47 <SteveBattle> @roger: Insufficient data...
Steve Battle: @roger: Insufficient data... ←
15:40:58 <cygri> ISSUE-15?
15:40:58 <trackbot> ISSUE-15 -- sharing binary resources and metadata -- open
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-15 -- sharing binary resources and metadata -- open ←
15:40:58 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/15
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/15 ←
15:41:14 <bblfish> Issue-37?
15:41:15 <trackbot> ISSUE-37 -- What is the LDP data model and the LDP interaction model? -- open
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-37 -- What is the LDP data model and the LDP interaction model? -- open ←
15:41:15 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/37
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/37 ←
<roger> subTopic: ISSUE-33: Pagination for non-container resources (again)
15:41:35 <bblfish> Issue-33?
15:41:35 <trackbot> ISSUE-33 -- Pagination for non-container resources -- closed
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-33 -- Pagination for non-container resources -- closed ←
15:41:35 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/33
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/33 ←
15:41:48 <bblfish> ok
Henry Story: ok ←
<roger> Arnaud: roger, based on what we just discussed are you now satisfied with the resolution we made on Issue-33?
Arnaud Le Hors: roger, based on what we just discussed are you now satisfied with the resolution we made on ISSUE-33? ←
<roger> roger: yes
Roger Menday: yes ←
15:42:41 <JohnArwe> q+
15:44:02 <sandro> (testing)
Sandro Hawke: (testing) ←
15:44:21 <Arnaud> ack john
Arnaud Le Hors: ack john ←
15:45:56 <JohnArwe> q+
15:46:05 <JohnArwe> q-
15:46:10 <SteveBattle> This is going way beyond pagination!
Steve Battle: This is going way beyond pagination! ←
15:47:11 <JohnArwe> steve B, not grokking your !
John Arwe: steve B, not grokking your ! ←
15:48:31 <roger> subTopic: ISSUE-17: changesets as a recommended PATCH format
15:48:35 <bblfish> Issue-17
15:48:35 <trackbot> ISSUE-17 -- changesets as a recommended PATCH format -- open
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-17 -- changesets as a recommended PATCH format -- open ←
15:48:35 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/17
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/17 ←
15:48:36 <SteveBattle> @JohnArwe: The '!' represents my unease about discussing undocumented proposals.
Steve Battle: @JohnArwe: The '!' represents my unease about discussing undocumented proposals. ←
15:48:46 <SteveS> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/meeting/2013-03-13#Issue__2d_17__3a__changesets_as_a_recommended_PATCH_format
Steve Speicher: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/meeting/2013-03-13#Issue__2d_17__3a__changesets_as_a_recommended_PATCH_format ←
15:49:44 <Zakim> -bblfish
Zakim IRC Bot: -bblfish ←
15:53:01 <sandro> q+
Sandro Hawke: q+ ←
15:53:11 <JohnArwe> q+
15:53:22 <Arnaud> ack sandro
Arnaud Le Hors: ack sandro ←
15:54:30 <cygri> q+
Richard Cyganiak: q+ ←
15:55:21 <JohnArwe> q-
15:55:37 <Arnaud> ack john
Arnaud Le Hors: ack john ←
15:55:41 <TallTed> we've run into a need to interrogate the server for its features/support at a number of points ... or at least, that ability would make (or have made) several things easier
Ted Thibodeau: we've run into a need to interrogate the server for its features/support at a number of points ... or at least, that ability would make (or have made) several things easier ←
15:55:46 <Arnaud> ack cygri
Arnaud Le Hors: ack cygri ←
15:55:52 <sandro> sandro: the server would need to advertise any patch-extensions it understands; the client MUST NOT assume the extensions are present unless its seen the server advertising it.
Sandro Hawke: the server would need to advertise any patch-extensions it understands; the client MUST NOT assume the extensions are present unless its seen the server advertising it. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
15:56:38 <SteveS> See Accept-Patch header http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5789#section-3.1
Steve Speicher: See Accept-Patch header http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5789#section-3.1 ←
15:57:54 <sandro> (yes, that's one way to advertise it.)
Sandro Hawke: (yes, that's one way to advertise it.) ←
15:58:04 <sandro> (if we clone trig to other media types.)
Sandro Hawke: (if we clone trig to other media types.) ←
15:59:51 <sandro> issue-17?
15:59:51 <trackbot> ISSUE-17 -- changesets as a recommended PATCH format -- open
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-17 -- changesets as a recommended PATCH format -- open ←
15:59:51 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/17
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/17 ←
16:00:53 <roger> arnaud: perhaps issue 17 is close-able with an action to develop something more concrete based on AndyS email.
Arnaud Le Hors: perhaps ISSUE-17 is close-able with an action to develop something more concrete based on AndyS email. ←
16:01:00 <Arnaud> Proposed: Use Andy's proposal http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2013Mar/0058.html as the basis for solving issue-17
PROPOSED: Use Andy's proposal http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2013Mar/0058.html as the basis for solving ISSUE-17 ←
16:01:14 <sandro> +1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
16:01:19 <roger> +1
+1 ←
16:01:22 <SteveS> +1
Steve Speicher: +1 ←
16:01:23 <mesteban> +1
Miguel Esteban Gutiérrez: +1 ←
16:01:23 <Ashok> =1
Ashok Malhotra: =1 ←
16:01:24 <SteveBattle> +1
Steve Battle: +1 ←
16:01:24 <rgarcia> +1
Raúl García Castro: +1 ←
16:01:25 <TallTed> +1
Ted Thibodeau: +1 ←
16:01:30 <cygri> +1
Richard Cyganiak: +1 ←
16:01:32 <nmihindu> +1
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: +1 ←
16:01:33 <JohnArwe> +1
16:01:59 <Arnaud> Resolved: Use Andy's proposal http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2013Mar/0058.html as the basis for solving issue-17
RESOLVED: Use Andy's proposal http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2013Mar/0058.html as the basis for solving ISSUE-17 ←
16:02:15 <sandro> (test)
Sandro Hawke: (test) ←
16:03:07 <Arnaud> lunch break for 30mn
Arnaud Le Hors: lunch break for 30mn ←
16:35:40 <TallTed> scribenick: TallTed
(No events recorded for 32 minutes)
(Scribe set to Ted Thibodeau)
16:36:10 <TallTed> cody: valueSets are another way of describing LDPCs, as I hear it
Cody Burleson: valueSets are another way of describing LDPCs, as I hear it ←
16:37:14 <TallTed> …LDPC is a concept, which should be concisely defineable.
…LDPC is a concept, which should be concisely defineable. ←
16:37:28 <TallTed> …if you can't do that, it seems it's really more than one concept.
…if you can't do that, it seems it's really more than one concept. ←
16:38:41 <TallTed> …reworded definition will be typed in!
…excellently reworded definition will be typed in! ←
16:39:15 <TallTed> s/reworded/excellently reworded/
16:39:29 <cody> A concise (an in my opinion, more proper) definition of an LDPC:
Cody Burleson: A concise (an in my opinion, more proper) definition of an LDPC: ←
16:39:51 <TallTed> Arnaud: best way to make progress, is to make concrete proposals, like that
Arnaud Le Hors: best way to make progress, is to make concrete proposals, like that ←
16:40:29 <TallTed> sandro: starting point is sometimes 10 minutes finding out whether others share my pain, vs spending a week to come up with a proposal nobody else cares about
Sandro Hawke: starting point is sometimes 10 minutes finding out whether others share my pain, vs spending a week to come up with a proposal nobody else cares about ←
16:40:31 <cody> "An LDPR representing a collection of same-subject, same-predicate triples, which are uniquely identified by a URI that responds to client requests for creation, modification, and enumeration of its members."
Cody Burleson: "An LDPR representing a collection of same-subject, same-predicate triples, which is uniquely identified by a URI that responds to client requests for creation, modification, and enumeration of its members." ←
16:40:53 <TallTed> s/which are/which is/
16:41:12 <TallTed> issue-15?
16:41:12 <trackbot> ISSUE-15 -- sharing binary resources and metadata -- open
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-15 -- sharing binary resources and metadata -- open ←
16:41:12 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/15
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/15 ←
16:41:18 <TallTed> subtopic: ISSUE-15: sharing binary resources and metadata
16:41:39 <cody> In the Trminology section of the spec, I think it may be more helpful to have such concise definitions rather than a sort of "cop out" pointer to the lengthy section (calling that the definition).
Cody Burleson: In the Trminology section of the spec, I think it may be more helpful to have such concise definitions rather than a sort of "cop out" pointer to the lengthy section (calling that the definition). ←
16:41:54 <SteveBattle> However, this definition doesn't mention the additional metadata that an LDPC may have, eg. for defining mebership predicates.
Steve Battle: However, this definition doesn't mention the additional metadata that an LDPC may have, eg. for defining membership predicates. ←
16:42:24 <SteveBattle> s/mebership/membership/
16:42:25 <TallTed> Arnaud: idea that when you post a binary to a container, 2 resources are created, 1 being metadata. question is which of these is the "member" and which is "external"
Arnaud Le Hors: idea that when you post a binary to a container, 2 resources are created, 1 being metadata. question is which of these is the "member" and which is "external" ←
16:43:41 <TallTed> ericP: paraphrasing richard, expectation had been that when a resource was got from a container, it would return RDF
Eric Prud'hommeaux: paraphrasing richard, expectation had been that when a resource was got from a container, it would return RDF ←
16:44:43 <SteveBattle> q+
Steve Battle: q+ ←
16:45:15 <cygri> q+
Richard Cyganiak: q+ ←
16:45:22 <Arnaud> ack steveb
Arnaud Le Hors: ack steveb ←
16:47:37 <SteveBattle> Is the POSTed binary added to the container, and if _not_ how do you get the correct deltion behaviour?
Steve Battle: Is the POSTed binary added to the container, and if _not_ how do you get the correct deltion behaviour? ←
16:47:39 <TallTed> ericP: issue is the "extra magic" of how to delete extraneous material (and what that is) when the member is deleted
Eric Prud'hommeaux: issue is the "extra magic" of how to delete extraneous material (and what that is) when the member is deleted ←
16:47:58 <Arnaud> ack cygri
Arnaud Le Hors: ack cygri ←
16:48:26 <SteveBattle> My own preferred magic sauce is to have the metadata live inside the container, so it's naturally deleted along with the container.
Steve Battle: My own preferred magic sauce is to have the metadata live inside the container, so it's naturally deleted along with the container. ←
16:48:54 <TallTed> cygri: the argument that made me object yesterday was the consistency...
Richard Cyganiak: the argument that made me object yesterday was the consistency... ←
16:49:12 <TallTed> … that the client knows that when it iterates through a container, it gets RDF back from all its members
… that the client knows that when it iterates through a container, it gets RDF back from all its members ←
16:49:48 <TallTed> … now we know that we want these to be very generic things, and their handling as well
… now we know that we want these to be very generic things, and their handling as well ←
16:50:37 <TallTed> … members are just links, at the end of the day, and just because you use an LDPC to manage these objects, doesn't mandate that they must all be LDPRs
… members are just links, at the end of the day, and just because you use an LDPC to manage these objects, doesn't mandate that they must all be LDPRs ←
16:50:59 <SteveS> q+
Steve Speicher: q+ ←
16:51:33 <TallTed> ericP: value of membershipPredicate pointing at newly created resource is higher than pre-knowing the type of all those resources
Eric Prud'hommeaux: value of membershipPredicate pointing at newly created resource is higher than pre-knowing the type of all those resources ←
16:51:50 <JohnArwe> q+
16:52:27 <TallTed> cygri: an LDPC might refuse to accept a POSTed image -- if *that* LDPC only contained Turtle files...
Richard Cyganiak: an LDPC might refuse to accept a POSTed image -- if *that* LDPC only contained Turtle files... ←
16:52:53 <Arnaud> ack steves
Arnaud Le Hors: ack steves ←
16:52:57 <TallTed> … we're basically telling the client they cannot rely on LDPC members being LDPRs
… we're basically telling the client they cannot rely on LDPC members being LDPRs ←
16:54:03 <JohnArwe> q-
16:54:22 <TallTed> SteveS: common pattern is to make the POSTed resource's URI the member value. changing that will mean changing much more.
Steve Speicher: common pattern is to make the POSTed resource's URI the member value. changing that will mean changing much more. ←
16:54:28 <davidwood> q+
David Wood: q+ ←
16:54:40 <Arnaud> ack david
Arnaud Le Hors: ack david ←
16:55:09 <TallTed> davidwood: has it been decided how a client will know it's talking to an LDP server, and if so, what kind of LDP server?
David Wood: has it been decided how a client will know it's talking to an LDP server, and if so, what kind of LDP server? ←
16:55:29 <TallTed> Arnaud: discovery is part of ISSUE-32. we have a proposal to flesh that out.
Arnaud Le Hors: discovery is part of ISSUE-32. we have a proposal to flesh that out. ←
16:56:05 <TallTed> sandro: question is are you talking to an LDPC, or an LDPR (not to an LDP server).
Sandro Hawke: question is are you talking to an LDPC, or an LDPR (not to an LDP server). ←
16:56:27 <sandro> issue-32?
16:56:27 <trackbot> ISSUE-32 -- How can clients discover that a resource is an LDPR or LDPC, and what features are supported? -- open
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-32 -- How can clients discover that a resource is an LDPR or LDPC, and what features are supported? -- open ←
16:56:27 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/32
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/32 ←
16:57:26 <TallTed> davidwood: I've determined I'm not talking to either LDPR or LDPC, but an image. should I not know I'm talking to an LDP server?
David Wood: I've determined I'm not talking to either LDPR or LDPC, but an image. should I not know I'm talking to an LDP server? ←
16:57:46 <TallTed> sandro: should be able to follow Link: rel header, and determine the answer...
Sandro Hawke: should be able to follow Link: rel header, and determine the answer... ←
16:58:08 <roger> it could be that if a resource has links to its value-sets, then it is a LDPR, otherwise it is something else .. (?)
Roger Menday: it could be that if a resource has links to its value-sets, then it is a LDPR, otherwise it is something else .. (?) ←
17:00:11 <TallTed> Arnaud: pulling back to the agenda... discussion of how cygri concluded that he was OK with yesterday's breakout proposal
Arnaud Le Hors: pulling back to the agenda... discussion of how cygri concluded that he was OK with yesterday's breakout proposal ←
17:00:40 <TallTed> ericP: I feel like we should come up with an answer about DELETE, but can see backward compatibility with existing application patterns has value
Eric Prud'hommeaux: I feel like we should come up with an answer about DELETE, but can see backward compatibility with existing application patterns has value ←
17:01:29 <JohnArwe> david, in your new issue please be as clear as possible what it this buys you that introspection of the resource [server's] capabilities ala 21/32 discussions will not. or at least which aspects of the server's behavior you'd certainly want a client to discover via your issue.
John Arwe: david, in your new issue please be as clear as possible what it this buys you that introspection of the resource [server's] capabilities ala 21/32 discussions will not. or at least which aspects of the server's behavior you'd certainly want a client to discover via your issue. ←
17:02:09 <davidwood> ok
David Wood: ok ←
17:02:44 <Arnaud> proposed: POST whatever you want to the container, and it gets given a URI I and returned as normal, but ALSO a metadata resources P is created. When you GET I, you get back a LINK header leading youto P. When you GET P, there's some triple with the same link information, leading you to I.
PROPOSED: POST whatever you want to the container, and it gets given a URI I and returned as normal, but ALSO a metadata resources P is created. When you GET I, you get back a LINK header leading youto P. When you GET P, there's some triple with the same link information, leading you to I. ←
17:03:10 <SteveBattle> I agree with John & Eric, the DELETE behaviour is under-specified.
Steve Battle: I agree with John & Eric, the DELETE behaviour is under-specified. ←
17:03:10 <rgarcia> q+
Raúl García Castro: q+ ←
17:03:21 <Arnaud> ack rgarcia
Arnaud Le Hors: ack rgarcia ←
17:03:40 <cygri> q+
Richard Cyganiak: q+ ←
17:04:11 <Arnaud> ack cygri
Arnaud Le Hors: ack cygri ←
17:04:16 <TallTed> [back-and-forth about whether I and P are or can be the same URI]
[back-and-forth about whether I and P are or can be the same URI] ←
17:05:03 <TallTed> cygri: MUST, MAY, SHOULD?
Richard Cyganiak: MUST, MAY, SHOULD? ←
17:05:59 <TallTed> JohnArwe: [composing spec vocally]
John Arwe: [composing spec vocally] ←
17:06:23 <SteveBattle> q+
Steve Battle: q+ ←
17:06:51 <Arnaud> ack steveb
Arnaud Le Hors: ack steveb ←
17:06:59 <TallTed> cygri: all this is optional anyway... so the server may do this additional?
Richard Cyganiak: all this is optional anyway... so the server may do this additional? ←
17:07:14 <JohnArwe> Assuming the existing qualifications that POST is optional, and supporting "binary" media types is optional:
John Arwe: Assuming the existing qualifications that POST is optional, and supporting "binary" media types is optional: ←
17:07:50 <Zakim> SW_LDP(F2F)8:30AM has ended
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_LDP(F2F)8:30AM has ended ←
17:07:50 <Zakim> Attendees were bblfish, WG-meeting
Zakim IRC Bot: Attendees were bblfish, WG-meeting ←
17:08:16 <davidwood> Zakim, this is SW_LDP
David Wood: Zakim, this is SW_LDP ←
17:08:16 <Zakim> davidwood, I see SW_LDP(F2F)8:30AM in the schedule but not yet started. Perhaps you mean "this will be SW_LDP".
Zakim IRC Bot: davidwood, I see SW_LDP(F2F)8:30AM in the schedule but not yet started. Perhaps you mean "this will be SW_LDP". ←
17:08:28 <davidwood> Zakim, this will be SW_LDP
David Wood: Zakim, this will be SW_LDP ←
17:08:28 <Zakim> ok, davidwood; I see SW_LDP(F2F)8:30AM scheduled to start 278 minutes ago
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, davidwood; I see SW_LDP(F2F)8:30AM scheduled to start 278 minutes ago ←
17:08:37 <SteveBattle> The metadata resource does not only comprise server-managed properties, a client may add additional metadata.
Steve Battle: The metadata resource does not only comprise server-managed properties, a client may add additional metadata. ←
17:09:17 <JohnArwe> ... The expected response to a post for create is a 201, with location header whose URI identifies the resource whose representation matches the POST input, and the response MAY include a Link header rel="meta" href= another URI identifying the resource whose state is the server-managed properties.
John Arwe: ... The expected response to a post for create is a 201, with location header whose URI identifies the resource whose representation matches the POST input, and the response MAY include a Link header rel="meta" href= another URI identifying the resource whose state is the server-managed properties. ←
17:09:23 <SteveBattle> It's may not be a simple LDPR URI, but possibly a hash URI within an LDPR
Steve Battle: It's may not be a simple LDPR URI, but possibly a hash URI within an LDPR ←
17:09:41 <JohnArwe> ...those two URIs MAY be distinct.
John Arwe: ...those two URIs MAY be distinct. ←
17:10:54 <TallTed> [vocal tinkering...]
[vocal tinkering...] ←
17:12:25 <JohnArwe> PROPOSAL: Assuming the existing qualifications that POST is optional, and supporting "binary" media types is optional: The expected response to a post for create is a 201, with location header whose URI I identifies the resource whose representation matches the POST input, and the response MAY include a Link header rel="meta" href= another URI P identifying the resource whose state is the server-managed properties.
PROPOSED: Assuming the existing qualifications that POST is optional, and supporting "binary" media types is optional: The expected response to a post for create is a 201, with location header whose URI I identifies the resource whose representation matches the POST input, and the response MAY include a Link header rel="meta" href= another URI P identifying the resource whose state is the server-managed properties. ←
17:12:25 <JohnArwe> When the object of a membership triple (I) is DELETEd, the server MUST automatically deletes any resource P that it created previously.
John Arwe: When the object of a membership triple (I) is DELETEd, the server MUST automatically deletes any related resource P that it created previously. ←
17:12:46 <Zakim> SW_LDP(F2F)8:30AM has now started
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_LDP(F2F)8:30AM has now started ←
17:12:53 <Zakim> +bblfish
Zakim IRC Bot: +bblfish ←
17:12:58 <JohnArwe> ...The URIs I and P MAY be distinct, but this is not required.
John Arwe: ...The URIs I and P MAY be distinct, but this is not required. ←
17:12:59 <Ashok> s/any/any related/
17:13:11 <roger> +1
Roger Menday: +1 ←
17:13:14 <bblfish> back, travelled from Paris to Fontainebleau during break
Henry Story: back, travelled from Paris to Fontainebleau during break ←
17:13:19 <davidwood> I suggest changing "MAY include a Link" to "SHOULD include a Link".
David Wood: I suggest changing "MAY include a Link" to "SHOULD include a Link". ←
17:13:22 <bblfish> can't hear anything
Henry Story: can't hear anything ←
17:13:31 <SteveBattle> Even for an RDF resource?
Steve Battle: Even for an RDF resource? ←
17:13:33 <Zakim> +WG-meeting
Zakim IRC Bot: +WG-meeting ←
17:13:36 <bblfish> thanks
Henry Story: thanks ←
17:13:38 <bblfish> +!
Henry Story: +! ←
17:13:44 <davidwood> …in order to ensure we don't conflict with any later resolution related to discoverability.
David Wood: …in order to ensure we don't conflict with any later resolution related to discoverability. ←
17:14:06 <SteveBattle> q+
Steve Battle: q+ ←
17:14:09 <cygri> q+
Richard Cyganiak: q+ ←
17:14:13 <mesteban> JohnArwe, should we discourage then sending DELETE to P?
Miguel Esteban Gutiérrez: JohnArwe, should we discourage then sending DELETE to P? ←
17:14:20 <Arnaud> ack steveb
Arnaud Le Hors: ack steveb ←
17:14:30 <TallTed> davidwood: my only change would be MAY to SHOULD for Link header
David Wood: my only change would be MAY to SHOULD for Link header ←
17:14:37 <Arnaud> ack cygri
Arnaud Le Hors: ack cygri ←
17:14:37 <JohnArwe> @miguel, fine by me
John Arwe: @miguel, fine by me ←
17:14:43 <TallTed> SteveBattle: seems redundant if POST was turtle
Steve Battle: seems redundant if POST was turtle ←
17:15:01 <TallTed> cygri: proposal now reads as if this happens even for turtle. not sure if that's the intentional.
Richard Cyganiak: proposal now reads as if this happens even for turtle. not sure if that's the intention. ←
17:15:04 <bblfish> logger?
Henry Story: logger? ←
17:15:10 <TallTed> s/intentional/intention/
17:15:24 <Arnaud> strawpoll: 1) what john wrote (with MAY), 2) same with SHOULD instead of MAY
STRAWPOLL: 1) what john wrote (with MAY), 2) same with SHOULD instead of MAY ←
17:15:52 <bblfish> zakim pointer?
Henry Story: zakim pointer? ←
17:15:54 <TallTed> cygri: the way this is described, "here's a useful pattern that servers may want to use in a certain case"
Richard Cyganiak: the way this is described, "here's a useful pattern that servers may want to use in a certain case" ←
17:16:11 <bblfish> got it thansk :-)
Henry Story: got it thansk :-) ←
17:16:19 <Ashok> q+
Ashok Malhotra: q+ ←
17:16:52 <TallTed> cygri: there will be implementations that don't want to deal with binary resources, and SHOULD forces extra work there
Richard Cyganiak: there will be implementations that don't want to deal with binary resources, and SHOULD forces extra work there ←
17:17:05 <Ashok> q-
Ashok Malhotra: q- ←
17:17:07 <Arnaud> ack ashok
Arnaud Le Hors: ack ashok ←
17:17:08 <TallTed> davidwood: implementations aren't required to support binaries, but if they *do*, they SHOULD do it this way
David Wood: implementations aren't required to support binaries, but if they *do*, they SHOULD do it this way ←
17:17:17 <bblfish> +1 for davidwood
Henry Story: +1 for davidwood ←
17:17:27 <TallTed> Ashok: echoes davidwood.
Ashok Malhotra: echoes davidwood. ←
17:17:36 <SteveBattle> "When the object of a membership triple (I) is DELETEd" - In the case of an inverse membership property, the binary is the subject.
Steve Battle: "When the object of a membership triple (I) is DELETEd" - In the case of an inverse membership property, the binary is the subject. ←
17:17:51 <davidwood> 0 +1
David Wood: -π +1 ←
17:17:52 <TallTed> Arnaud: strawpoll: 1) what john wrote (with MAY), 2) same with SHOULD instead of MAY
Arnaud Le Hors: strawpoll: 1) what john wrote (with MAY), 2) same with SHOULD instead of MAY ←
17:17:59 <JohnArwe> steve b: correct
17:18:03 <cygri> 1 -0.2
Richard Cyganiak: 1 -0.2 ←
17:18:10 <Ashok> 0,1
Ashok Malhotra: 0,1 ←
17:18:16 <TallTed> 0, +1
0, +1 ←
17:18:18 <mesteban> 0,+1
Miguel Esteban Gutiérrez: 0,+1 ←
17:18:21 <JohnArwe> ...needs to factor inverses in, but we also need something to start w/ before changing it I hope.
John Arwe: ...needs to factor inverses in, but we also need something to start w/ before changing it I hope. ←
17:18:22 <SteveS> 0, 0
Steve Speicher: 0, 0 ←
17:18:27 <cody> 0,0
Cody Burleson: 0,0 ←
17:18:47 <krp> 0,+0.8
Kevin Page: 0,+0.8 ←
17:18:56 <nmihindu> 0, +1
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: 0, +1 ←
17:18:56 <TallTed> cygri: don't see why we're getting into specifying patterns for metadata of binary resources...
Richard Cyganiak: don't see why we're getting into specifying patterns for metadata of binary resources... ←
17:18:58 <bblfish> Mhh, I don't understand this proposal
Henry Story: Mhh, I don't understand this proposal ←
17:19:06 <JohnArwe> 1,1
17:19:15 <SteveBattle> 1,0 (subject to rewording of "object of membership triple")
Steve Battle: 1,0 (subject to rewording of "object of membership triple") ←
17:19:19 <cody> my 0,0, is pass (out of ignorance)
Cody Burleson: my 0,0, is pass (out of ignorance) ←
17:19:29 <rgarcia> +1, 0
Raúl García Castro: +1, 0 ←
17:19:46 <Ashok> Henry, MAY ad metadata or SHOULD add metadata
Ashok Malhotra: Henry, MAY ad metadata or SHOULD add metadata ←
17:19:48 <davidwood> s/0 +1/-π +1/
17:19:56 <mesteban> Then my voyte should be +1, +1.
Miguel Esteban Gutiérrez: Then my vote should be +1, +1. ←
17:20:06 <mesteban> s/voyte/vote/
17:21:30 <bblfish> ah ok I got it
Henry Story: ah ok I got it ←
17:21:31 <SteveS> +1, +1 should have been my vote -- I want this text for binary resources and associated meta resource, neutral on whether it should be MAY or SHOULD
Steve Speicher: +1, +1 should have been my vote -- I want this text for binary resources and associated meta resource, neutral on whether it should be MAY or SHOULD ←
17:22:14 <bblfish> +1,0 (
Henry Story: +1,0 ( ←
17:22:29 <bblfish> oops
Henry Story: oops ←
17:22:36 <bblfish> I mean 0,+1
Henry Story: I mean 0,+1 ←
17:23:00 <bblfish> I can still hear arnaud
Henry Story: I can still hear arnaud ←
17:23:18 <Arnaud> Proposed: Close issue-15 with: Assuming the existing qualifications that POST is optional, and supporting "binary" media types is optional: The expected response to a post for create is a 201, with location header whose URI I identifies the resource whose representation matches the POST input, and the response SHOULD include a Link header rel="meta" href= another URI P identifying the resource whose state is the server-managed properties. When the object of a membership triple (I) is DELETEd, the server MUST automatically deletes any resource P that it created previously.
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-15 with: Assuming the existing qualifications that POST is optional, and supporting "binary" media types is optional: The expected response to a post for create is a 201, with location header whose URI I identifies the resource whose representation matches the POST input, and the response SHOULD include a Link header rel="meta" href= another URI P identifying the resource whose state is the server-managed properties. When the object of a membership triple (I) is DELETEd, the server MUST automatically deletes any resource P that it created previously. ←
17:23:35 <SteveBattle> 0
Steve Battle: 0 ←
17:23:46 <TallTed> "...The URIs I and P MAY be distinct, but this is not required."
"...The URIs I and P MAY be distinct, but this is not required." ←
17:24:28 <bblfish> +1
Henry Story: +1 ←
17:24:45 <TallTed> drafting and redrafting...
drafting and redrafting... ←
17:25:33 <JohnArwe> PROPOSAL: Assuming the existing qualifications that POST is optional, and supporting "binary" media types is optional: The expected response to a post for create that creates a non-LDPR is a 201, with location header whose URI I identifies the resource whose representation matches the POST input, and the response SHOULD include a Link header rel="meta" href= another URI P identifying the resource whose state is the server-managed properties. When the object of a membership triple (I) is DELETEd, the server MUST automatically deletes any related resource P that it created previously.
PROPOSED: close ISSUE-15 with: Assuming the existing qualifications that POST is optional, and supporting "binary" media types is optional: The expected response to a post for create that creates a non-LDPR is a 201, with location header whose URI I identifies the resource whose representation matches the POST input, and the response SHOULD include a Link header rel="meta" href= another URI P identifying the resource whose state is the server-managed properties. When the object of a membership triple (I) is DELETEd, the server MUST automatically deletes any related resource P that it created previously. ←
17:25:57 <SteveS> +1
Steve Speicher: +1 ←
17:26:14 <cygri> -0.2
Richard Cyganiak: -0.2 ←
17:26:14 <TallTed> +1
+1 ←
17:26:15 <mesteban> Shouldn't we include Ted's clarification?
Miguel Esteban Gutiérrez: Shouldn't we include Ted's clarification? ←
17:26:19 <krp> +1
Kevin Page: +1 ←
17:26:21 <Ashok> +1
Ashok Malhotra: +1 ←
17:26:22 <rgarcia> -1
Raúl García Castro: -1 ←
17:26:24 <bblfish> +1
Henry Story: +1 ←
17:26:30 <nmihindu> +1
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: +1 ←
17:26:35 <davidwood> +1
David Wood: +1 ←
17:26:35 <TallTed> s/PROPOSAL: Assuming/PROPOSAL: close issue-15 with: Assuming/
17:26:56 <SteveBattle> 1 (subject to rewording of "object of membership triple" in the case of inverse membership properties)
Steve Battle: 1 (subject to rewording of "object of membership triple" in the case of inverse membership properties) ←
17:27:51 <JohnArwe> PROPOSAL: Close issue-15 by saying: Assuming the existing qualifications that POST is optional, and supporting "binary" media types is optional: The expected response to a post for create that creates a non-LDPR is a 201, with location header whose URI I identifies the resource whose representation matches the POST input, and the response SHOULD include a Link header rel="meta" href= another URI P identifying the resource whose state is the server-managed properties. The URIs I and P MAY be distinct, but this is not required. When the object of a membership triple (I) is DELETEd, the server MUST automatically deletes any related resource P that it created previously.
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-15 by saying: Assuming the existing qualifications that POST is optional, and supporting "binary" media types is optional: The expected response to a post for create that creates a non-LDPR is a 201, with location header whose URI I identifies the resource whose representation matches the POST input, and the response SHOULD include a Link header rel="meta" href= another URI P identifying the resource whose state is the server-managed properties. The URIs I and P MAY be distinct, but this is not required. When the object of a membership triple (I) is DELETEd, the server MUST automatically deletes any related resource P that it created previously. ←
17:27:56 <TallTed> seventeenth time's the charm!
seventeenth time's the charm! ←
17:28:33 <rgarcia> +1
Raúl García Castro: +1 ←
17:28:33 <TallTed> +1
+1 ←
17:28:39 <ericP> +1
Eric Prud'hommeaux: +1 ←
17:28:40 <SteveS> +1
Steve Speicher: +1 ←
17:28:40 <nmihindu> +1
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: +1 ←
17:28:40 <cygri> -0.21
Richard Cyganiak: -0.21 ←
17:28:41 <roger> +1
Roger Menday: +1 ←
17:28:43 <mesteban> +1
Miguel Esteban Gutiérrez: +1 ←
17:28:45 <krp> +1
Kevin Page: +1 ←
17:28:48 <SteveBattle> 1 (subject to rewording of "object of membership triple" in the case of inverse membership properties)
Steve Battle: 1 (subject to rewording of "object of membership triple" in the case of inverse membership properties) ←
17:29:02 <davidwood> +1
David Wood: +1 ←
17:29:03 <bblfish> +1
Henry Story: +1 ←
17:29:05 <JohnArwe> +1
17:29:52 <TallTed> mesteban: what happens when we send a DELETE for P?
Miguel Esteban Gutiérrez: what happens when we send a DELETE for P? ←
17:30:18 <JohnArwe> Miguel raised a question earlier... one way to address that might be: LDPC servers SHOULD NOT allow clients to delete
John Arwe: Miguel raised a question earlier... one way to address that might be: LDPC servers SHOULD NOT allow clients to delete ←
17:30:18 <JohnArwe> server-managed resources like P.
John Arwe: server-managed resources like P. ←
17:30:21 <SteveBattle> P is deleted?
Steve Battle: P is deleted? ←
17:30:24 <Arnaud> Resolved: Close issue-15 by saying: Assuming the existing qualifications that POST is optional, and supporting "binary" media types is optional: The expected response to a post for create that creates a non-LDPR is a 201, with location header whose URI I identifies the resource whose representation matches the POST input, and the response SHOULD include a Link header rel="meta" href= another URI P identifying the resource whose state is the server-managed properties. The URIs I and P MAY be distinct, but this is not required. When the object of a membership triple (I) is DELETEd, the server MUST automatically deletes any related resource P that it created previously.
RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-15 by saying: Assuming the existing qualifications that POST is optional, and supporting "binary" media types is optional: The expected response to a post for create that creates a non-LDPR is a 201, with location header whose URI I identifies the resource whose representation matches the POST input, and the response SHOULD include a Link header rel="meta" href= another URI P identifying the resource whose state is the server-managed properties. The URIs I and P MAY be distinct, but this is not required. When the object of a membership triple (I) is DELETEd, the server MUST automatically deletes any related resource P that it created previously. ←
17:31:17 <TallTed> PROPOSAL: LDPC servers SHOULD NOT allow clients to delete server-managed resources like P.
PROPOSED: LDPC servers SHOULD NOT allow clients to delete server-managed resources like P. ←
17:31:20 <SteveBattle> q+
Steve Battle: q+ ←
17:31:39 <bblfish> ?
Henry Story: ? ←
17:31:42 <TallTed> SteveBattle: I don't agree that these properties are only server-managed
Steve Battle: I don't agree that these properties are only server-managed ←
17:31:51 <JohnArwe> LDPC servers SHOULD NOT allow clients to delete resources like P.
John Arwe: LDPC servers SHOULD NOT allow clients to delete resources like P. ←
17:32:00 <SteveBattle> q-
Steve Battle: q- ←
17:32:00 <Arnaud> ack steveb
Arnaud Le Hors: ack steveb ←
17:32:14 <SteveBattle> 0
Steve Battle: 0 ←
17:32:23 <bblfish> ah you mean one should not be able to delete the metadata about a binary if the binary exists.
Henry Story: ah you mean one should not be able to delete the metadata about a binary if the binary exists. ←
17:32:46 <davidwood> I disagree with TallTed.
David Wood: I disagree with TallTed. ←
17:34:28 <davidwood> TallTed is saying something like, "A server MAY decide to create and separately manage metadata about its resources. Clients MAY NOT be allowed to delete server-created resources."
David Wood: TallTed is saying something like, "A server MAY decide to create and separately manage metadata about its resources. Clients MAY NOT be allowed to delete server-created resources." ←
17:34:52 <cygri> For the record: I prefer LDP to be concerned only with managing RDF representations, with the possibility to extend it for other kinds of data. This decision adds a half-baked protocol for managing non-RDF resources, and I don't think that should be in LDP.
Richard Cyganiak: For the record: I prefer LDP to be concerned only with managing RDF representations, with the possibility to extend it for other kinds of data. This decision adds a half-baked protocol for managing non-RDF resources, and I don't think that should be in LDP. ←
17:35:32 <TallTed> rgarcia: the server decided to create that additional resource, so it shouldn't allow deletion
Miguel Esteban Gutiérrez: the server decided to create that additional resource, so it shouldn't allow deletion ←
17:35:54 <rgarcia> s/rgarcia/mesteban/
17:36:26 <TallTed> (2 minute break...)
(2 minute break...) ←
17:36:28 <bblfish> I'll go make good coffée too here...
Henry Story: I'll go make good coffée too here... ←
17:41:26 <TallTed> (reconvene)
(reconvene) ←
17:41:39 <TallTed> Arnaud: do we continue pursuing this? or leave it at that?
Arnaud Le Hors: do we continue pursuing this? or leave it at that? ←
17:42:18 <TallTed> davidwood: small group conversation... server can create its own server-managed metadata that clients can't touch.
David Wood: small group conversation... server can create its own server-managed metadata that clients can't touch. ←
17:42:18 <TallTed> …server can also create LDPRs or LDPCs on its own that are exposed to client interaction.
…server can also create LDPRs or LDPCs on its own that are exposed to client interaction. ←
17:42:29 <TallTed> …if server decides to create metadata that only it controls, it can do that
…if server decides to create metadata that only it controls, it can do that ←
17:42:56 <TallTed> Ashok: 2 kinds of metadata. which one does the link header point to?
Ashok Malhotra: 2 kinds of metadata. which one does the link header point to? ←
17:43:36 <TallTed> …could have multiple Link headers!
…could have multiple Link headers! ←
17:43:46 <davidwood> Good question! Could a server expose metadata to a client that no client is allowed to act upon?
David Wood: Good question! Could a server expose metadata to a client that no client is allowed to act upon? ←
17:44:02 <cygri> q+
Richard Cyganiak: q+ ←
17:44:10 <SteveBattle> …nothing to stop user-managed and server-managed triples being in the same LDPR
Steve Battle: …nothing to stop user-managed and server-managed triples being in the same LDPR ←
17:44:24 <TallTed> davidwood: I like software systems that eat their own dogfood. where high level functionality is built on the low level functionality.
David Wood: I like software systems that eat their own dogfood. where high level functionality is built on the low level functionality. ←
17:44:52 <TallTed> … way to implement an LDP server is for that server to make use of all this RDF stuff it has floating around, REST interactions, etc.
… way to implement an LDP server is for that server to make use of all this RDF stuff it has floating around, REST interactions, etc. ←
17:45:26 <TallTed> … if that server already has some sort of permissions structure, it's easy to use that on its own created metadata
… if that server already has some sort of permissions structure, it's easy to use that on its own created metadata ←
17:45:34 <bblfish> Agree: the ACL system can be used to give permissions on resources and metadata
Henry Story: Agree: the ACL system can be used to give permissions on resources and metadata ←
17:46:19 <Arnaud> ack cygri
Arnaud Le Hors: ack cygri ←
17:46:24 <cygri> q-
Richard Cyganiak: q- ←
17:46:34 <SteveBattle> Sounds like we need a separate issue about server-managed properties and ACL's?
Steve Battle: Sounds like we need a separate issue about server-managed properties and ACL's? ←
17:46:54 <TallTed> P = container, 2 contained resources, 1 for server, 1 for client. :-)
P = container, 2 contained resources, 1 for server, 1 for client. :-) ←
17:47:22 <JohnArwe> @SB: "need" implies you are requesting a change, so if so... yes
John Arwe: @SB: "need" implies you are requesting a change, so if so... yes ←
17:47:52 <TallTed> Arnaud: what do we do next? administrivia awaits (review RAISED issues, etc.)
Arnaud Le Hors: what do we do next? administrivia awaits (review RAISED issues, etc.) ←
<tallted> topic: Disposition of Raised Issues
<tallted> subtopic: ISSUE-51: Linking from a Resource to its Containers
17:49:07 <TallTed> issue-51?
17:49:07 <trackbot> ISSUE-51 -- Linking from a Resource to its Containers (aka 'backlinks') -- raised
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-51 -- Linking from a Resource to its Containers (aka 'backlinks') -- raised ←
17:49:07 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/51
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/51 ←
17:51:49 <bblfish> ah ok. The title is very misleading
Henry Story: ah ok. The title is very misleading ←
17:53:02 <TallTed> [rewording to correct intent]
[rewording to correct intent] ←
17:55:45 <JohnArwe> q+
17:55:49 <cygri> Linking from a membershipSubject to its containers
Richard Cyganiak: Linking from a membershipSubject to its containers ←
17:56:12 <cygri> q+
Richard Cyganiak: q+ ←
17:56:34 <SteveS> <c, ldl:membershipSubject, r>
Steve Speicher: <c, ldl:membershipSubject, r> ←
17:57:00 <SteveS> q+
Steve Speicher: q+ ←
17:57:55 <Arnaud> ack john
Arnaud Le Hors: ack john ←
17:58:18 <TallTed> JohnArwe: will expose the cognitive double-entendres
John Arwe: will expose the cognitive double-entendres ←
17:58:30 <davidwood> ISSUE-51 may be a tautology: If a resource is referenced, we don't need to separately reference them...
David Wood: ISSUE-51 may be a tautology: If a resource is referenced, we don't need to separately reference them... ←
17:58:54 <Arnaud> ack cygri
Arnaud Le Hors: ack cygri ←
17:59:27 <SteveBattle> q+
Steve Battle: q+ ←
17:59:47 <bblfish> The problem is that one needs now something saying that this is NOT backlinks
Henry Story: The problem is that one needs now something saying that this is NOT backlinks ←
18:00:06 <Arnaud> ack steves
Arnaud Le Hors: ack steves ←
18:00:06 <davidwood> +1 to bblfish
David Wood: +1 to bblfish ←
18:00:07 <SteveS> <c, ldl:membershipSubject, r>
Steve Speicher: <c, ldl:membershipSubject, r> ←
18:00:36 <TallTed> "ISSUE-51: Linking from a Resource to the Containers which it contains (not the containers the resource is in)"
"ISSUE-51: Linking from a Resource to the Containers which it contains (not the containers the resource is in)" ←
18:00:50 <TallTed> which makes the Resource a Container
which makes the Resource a Container ←
18:01:50 <TallTed> SteveS: example on Net Worth, 1.9, may be relevant...
Steve Speicher: example on Net Worth, 1.9, may be relevant... ←
18:02:32 <Arnaud> ack steveb
Arnaud Le Hors: ack steveb ←
18:03:28 <bblfish> q+
Henry Story: q+ ←
18:03:33 <TallTed> how do you get from an LDPR to the valueSets (a/k/a LDPCs) of which it is Subject?
how do you get from an LDPR to the valueSets (a/k/a LDPCs) of which it is Subject? ←
18:03:36 <Arnaud> ack bblfish
Arnaud Le Hors: ack bblfish ←
18:04:02 <ericP> <containerPage1> { <http://example.org/netWorth/nw1> o:asset <a1>,<a2>. <a1> a o:Stock . <a2> a o:Cash>
Eric Prud'hommeaux: <containerPage1> { <http://example.org/netWorth/nw1> o:asset <a1>,<a2>. <a1> a o:Stock . <a2> a o:Cash> ←
18:04:06 <ericP> }
18:04:08 <ericP> <a1> { <a1> a o:Stock ; o:value 100.00 ; dcterms:title "IBM" }
Eric Prud'hommeaux: <a1> { <a1> a o:Stock ; o:value 100.00 ; dcterms:title "IBM" } ←
18:04:11 <ericP> <a2> { <a2> a o:Cash ; o:value 50.00 ; }
Eric Prud'hommeaux: <a2> { <a2> a o:Cash ; o:value 50.00 ; } ←
18:04:48 <bblfish> perhaps put that in the issue then
Henry Story: perhaps put that in the issue then ←
18:05:21 <SteveBattle> I only just grokked that a value-set is what was formerly known as an LDPC.
Steve Battle: I only just grokked that a value-set is what was formerly known as an LDPC. ←
18:06:01 <davidwood> bblfish, the diagram roger drew looks something like this: A container (A) links to a resource (B), resource (B) in turn links to containers (C) and (D). ISSUE-51 is about the links from B to C and B to D.
David Wood: bblfish, the diagram roger drew looks something like this: A container (A) links to a resource (B), resource (B) in turn links to containers (C) and (D). ISSUE-51 is about the links from B to C and B to D. ←
18:06:05 <JohnArwe> henry you can also look at ex 2 from the LDP spec; in that context, the question is how a client "finds" /nw1 (and any other containers) from a resource like <>
John Arwe: henry you can also look at ex 2 from the LDP spec; in that context, the question is how a client "finds" /nw1 (and any other containers) from a resource like <> ←
18:06:29 <bblfish> ok.
Henry Story: ok. ←
18:06:51 <bblfish> Just take a picture of the picture and post the above explanation in the issue report
Henry Story: Just take a picture of the picture and post the above explanation in the issue report ←
18:06:55 <JohnArwe> ...and do that WITHOUT implying somehow that <> MUST be a container (which was the problem with the "child link" alternative, that it suggested this unwanted effect)
John Arwe: ...and do that WITHOUT implying somehow that <> MUST be a container (which was the problem with the "child link" alternative, that it suggested this unwanted effect) ←
18:07:41 <SteveBattle> I need concrete written examples before I can process this properly.
Steve Battle: I need concrete written examples before I can process this properly. ←
18:08:06 <bblfish> but if B links to C and D what is the issue?
Henry Story: but if B links to C and D what is the issue? ←
18:08:13 <TallTed> roger: wants a MUST that you get :steve'sFriends ldp:membershipSubject :Steve when you dereference :Steve...
Roger Menday: wants a MUST that you get :steve'sFriends ldp:membershipSubject :Steve when you dereference :Steve... ←
18:08:31 <davidwood> bblfish, That's what we are trying to articulate :)
David Wood: bblfish, That's what we are trying to articulate :) ←
18:08:45 <davidwood> Frankly, I'm confused, or at least I think I am.
David Wood: Frankly, I'm confused, or at least I think I am. ←
18:08:46 <bblfish> does it matter, any relation will do no?
Henry Story: does it matter, any relation will do no? ←
18:09:20 <bblfish> ( well not any relation, but there could be many relations relating a resource to a container - an infinity to be precise )
Henry Story: ( well not any relation, but there could be many relations relating a resource to a container - an infinity to be precise ) ←
18:09:31 <TallTed> roger: is accustomed to getting :Steve in ?subject position for all relevant statements, not used to looking at ?object as well
Roger Menday: is accustomed to getting :Steve in ?subject position for all relevant statements, not used to looking at ?object as well ←
18:10:04 <bblfish> if you want to say something is a container. then you can have { B link C . C a ldp:Container .}
Henry Story: if you want to say something is a container. then you can have { B link C . C a ldp:Container .} ←
18:10:05 <Arnaud> q?
Arnaud Le Hors: q? ←
18:10:09 <JohnArwe> I could try it as a variation on LDP spec ex 2: instead of <> being a container itself, imagine that it *has* two containers, one for assets and one for liabilities. If a client is given the URL for <>, how does the client find out about the assets and liabilities containers?
John Arwe: I could try it as a variation on LDP spec ex 2: instead of <> being a container itself, imagine that it *has* two containers, one for assets and one for liabilities. If a client is given the URL for <>, how does the client find out about the assets and liabilities containers? ←
18:10:54 <Arnaud> resolved: Open issue-51
18:11:07 <Arnaud> reopen issue-51
Arnaud Le Hors: reopen ISSUE-51 ←
18:11:07 <trackbot> Re-opened ISSUE-51 Linking from a Resource to its Containers (not the containers the resource is in).
Trackbot IRC Bot: Re-opened ISSUE-51 Linking from a Resource to its Containers (not the containers the resource is in). ←
18:11:47 <bblfish> should the title not be "Linking from a Resource to containers"?
Henry Story: should the title not be "Linking from a Resource to containers"? ←
18:11:52 <TallTed> Arnaud: moving on... issue52
Arnaud Le Hors: moving on... ISSUE-52 ←
<tallted> subtopic: ISSUE-52: base & ISSUE-54: Which URIs should replace null relative URIs provided in LDPR representations
18:11:55 <TallTed> issue-52?
18:11:55 <trackbot> ISSUE-52 -- base -- raised
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-52 -- base -- raised ←
18:11:55 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/52
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/52 ←
18:13:37 <davidwood> Possible duplicate with ISSUE-54
David Wood: Possible duplicate with ISSUE-54 ←
18:13:42 <davidwood> ISSUE-54?
18:13:42 <trackbot> ISSUE-54 -- Which URIs should replace null relative URIs provided in LDPR representations? -- raised
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-54 -- Which URIs should replace null relative URIs provided in LDPR representations? -- raised ←
18:13:42 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/54
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/54 ←
18:14:00 <TallTed> bblfish: logged based on email to the list. looked at spec as-of-today, and saw confusion about the meaning of <>
Henry Story: logged based on email to the list. looked at spec as-of-today, and saw confusion about the meaning of <> ←
18:15:02 <bblfish> http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/WD-ldp-20130307/#http-post-1
Henry Story: http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/WD-ldp-20130307/#http-post-1 ←
18:15:04 <roger> @TallTed, just for the record, looking at the ?object doesn't freak me out entirely, I just want to be follow the signposts simply, rather then pre-assuming knowledge of the destination to find forward signposts.
Roger Menday: @TallTed, just for the record, looking at the ?object doesn't freak me out entirely, I just want to be follow the signposts simply, rather then pre-assuming knowledge of the destination to find forward signposts. ←
18:15:10 <bblfish> 5.4.8 In RDF representations, LDPC servers must interpret the
Henry Story: 5.4.8 In RDF representations, LDPC servers must interpret the ←
18:15:10 <bblfish> null relative URI for the subject of triples in the LDPR
Henry Story: null relative URI for the subject of triples in the LDPR ←
18:15:10 <bblfish> representation in the request entity body as referring to the
Henry Story: representation in the request entity body as referring to the ←
18:15:12 <bblfish> entity in the request body. Commonly, that entity is the model
Henry Story: entity in the request body. Commonly, that entity is the model ←
18:15:14 <bblfish> for the “to be created” LDPR, so triples whose subject is the
Henry Story: for the “to be created” LDPR, so triples whose subject is the ←
18:15:16 <bblfish> null relative URI will usually result in triples in the created
Henry Story: null relative URI will usually result in triples in the created ←
18:15:18 <bblfish> resource whose subject is the created resource.
Henry Story: resource whose subject is the created resource. ←
18:16:03 <davidwood> q+ to suggest combining ISSUE-52 and ISSUE-54 by pulling ISSUE-54 content into ISSUE-52 and closing ISSUE-54 as duplicate. ISSUE-52 should be opened.
David Wood: q+ to suggest combining ISSUE-52 and ISSUE-54 by pulling ISSUE-54 content into ISSUE-52 and closing ISSUE-54 as duplicate. ISSUE-52 should be opened. ←
18:16:09 <TallTed> bblfish: this suggests that the parser behavior must be changed
Henry Story: this suggests that the parser behavior must be changed ←
18:16:18 <Arnaud> ack david
Arnaud Le Hors: ack david ←
18:16:18 <Zakim> davidwood, you wanted to suggest combining ISSUE-52 and ISSUE-54 by pulling ISSUE-54 content into ISSUE-52 and closing ISSUE-54 as duplicate. ISSUE-52 should be opened.
Zakim IRC Bot: davidwood, you wanted to suggest combining ISSUE-52 and ISSUE-54 by pulling ISSUE-54 content into ISSUE-52 and closing ISSUE-54 as duplicate. ISSUE-52 should be opened. ←
18:17:24 <SteveBattle> q+
Steve Battle: q+ ←
18:17:43 <TallTed> PROPOSED: merge content of issue-52 and issue-54, closing 52, and OPENing 54 for future discussion/resolution
PROPOSED: merge content of ISSUE-52 and ISSUE-54, closing 52, and OPENing 54 for future discussion/resolution ←
18:17:47 <cygri> +1
Richard Cyganiak: +1 ←
18:17:54 <SteveBattle> q-
Steve Battle: q- ←
18:18:02 <SteveBattle> +1
Steve Battle: +1 ←
18:19:09 <bblfish> q+
Henry Story: q+ ←
18:20:18 <Arnaud> ack bblfish
Arnaud Le Hors: ack bblfish ←
18:21:26 <bblfish> ok
Henry Story: ok ←
18:21:29 <JohnArwe> +54 ... or +52
18:21:32 <TallTed> Arnaud: +1
Arnaud Le Hors: +1 ←
18:21:43 <SteveS> +1
Steve Speicher: +1 ←
18:21:57 <nmihindu> +1
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: +1 ←
18:21:59 <mesteban> +1
Miguel Esteban Gutiérrez: +1 ←
18:22:01 <cody> +1
Cody Burleson: +1 ←
18:22:03 <rgarcia> +1
Raúl García Castro: +1 ←
18:22:05 <bblfish> +1 to closing 52 and add 52 as a solution to 54
Henry Story: +1 to closing 52 and add 52 as a solution to 54 ←
18:22:07 <davidwood> +1
David Wood: +1 ←
18:22:11 <roger> +1
Roger Menday: +1 ←
18:22:14 <TallTed> RESOLVED: Merge content of issue-52 and issue-54, closing 52, and OPENing 54 for future discussion/resolution
RESOLVED: Merge content of ISSUE-52 and ISSUE-54, closing 52, and OPENing 54 for future discussion/resolution ←
<tallted> subtopic: ISSUE-53: Which Content Types should be returned to bots?
18:22:42 <bblfish> Issue-53
18:22:42 <trackbot> ISSUE-53 -- Which Content Types should be returned to bots? -- raised
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-53 -- Which Content Types should be returned to bots? -- raised ←
18:22:42 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/53
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/53 ←
18:23:42 <TallTed> Arnaud: issue 53. oh yes. seems clearly justified. let's open it.
Arnaud Le Hors: ISSUE-53. oh yes. seems clearly justified. let's open it. ←
18:23:49 <TallTed> Arnaud: opened by acclamation.
Arnaud Le Hors: opened by acclamation. ←
18:23:53 <Arnaud> resolved: Open issue-53
18:24:03 <Arnaud> reopen issue-53
Arnaud Le Hors: reopen ISSUE-53 ←
18:24:03 <trackbot> Re-opened ISSUE-53 Which Content Types should be returned to bots?.
Trackbot IRC Bot: Re-opened ISSUE-53 Which Content Types should be returned to bots?. ←
<tallted> subtopic: ISSUE-55: Hypermedia as the Engine of Application State (HATEOAS) Compliance
18:24:21 <TallTed> issue;55?
issue;55? ←
18:24:24 <TallTed> issue-55?
18:24:24 <trackbot> ISSUE-55 -- Hypermedia as the Engine of Application State (HATEOAS) Compliance -- raised
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-55 -- Hypermedia as the Engine of Application State (HATEOAS) Compliance -- raised ←
18:24:24 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/55
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/55 ←
18:24:41 <TallTed> Arnaud: issue 55 also seems to have a valid point, may resonate with Roger
Arnaud Le Hors: ISSUE-55 also seems to have a valid point, may resonate with Roger ←
18:25:49 <TallTed> [discussion - some past comments comes to mind here, but no resolution is remembered]
[discussion - some past comments comes to mind here, but no resolution is remembered] ←
18:26:02 <TallTed> Arnaud: without objection.... opening issue-55
Arnaud Le Hors: without objection.... opening ISSUE-55 ←
18:26:09 <Arnaud> resolved: Open issue-55
18:26:14 <Arnaud> reopen issue-55
Arnaud Le Hors: reopen ISSUE-55 ←
18:26:14 <trackbot> Re-opened ISSUE-55 Hypermedia as the Engine of Application State (HATEOAS) Compliance.
Trackbot IRC Bot: Re-opened ISSUE-55 Hypermedia as the Engine of Application State (HATEOAS) Compliance. ←
18:26:17 <cygri> strong +1 to opening 55
Richard Cyganiak: strong +1 to opening 55 ←
<tallted> subtopic: ISSUE-56: How can clients discover LDPR PUT URLs?
18:26:30 <bblfish> Issue-56
18:26:30 <trackbot> ISSUE-56 -- How can clients discover LDPR PUT URLs? -- raised
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-56 -- How can clients discover LDPR PUT URLs? -- raised ←
18:26:30 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/56
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/56 ←
18:28:00 <TallTed> TallTed: open it
Ted Thibodeau: open it ←
18:29:37 <mesteban> +1 to davidwood
Miguel Esteban Gutiérrez: +1 to davidwood ←
18:29:57 <Arnaud> resolved: Open issue-56
18:30:02 <Arnaud> reopen issue-56
Arnaud Le Hors: reopen ISSUE-56 ←
18:30:02 <trackbot> Re-opened ISSUE-56 How can clients discover LDPR PUT URLs?.
Trackbot IRC Bot: Re-opened ISSUE-56 How can clients discover LDPR PUT URLs?. ←
18:30:05 <TallTed> sandro: a good answer may be "don't do that. only PUT on something you can GET"
Sandro Hawke: a good answer may be "don't do that. only PUT on something you can GET" ←
18:30:10 <cygri> sandro: Only ever do a PUT when you can do a GET
Sandro Hawke: Only ever do a PUT when you can do a GET [ Scribe Assist by Richard Cyganiak ] ←
<tallted> subtopic: ISSUE-57: How can a client determine that it is in communication with an LDP service?
18:31:09 <bblfish> Issue-57
18:31:09 <trackbot> ISSUE-57 -- How can a client determine that it is in communication with an LDP service? -- raised
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-57 -- How can a client determine that it is in communication with an LDP service? -- raised ←
18:31:09 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/57
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/57 ←
18:31:32 <TallTed> Arnaud: issue:57 -- identifying an LDP service
Arnaud Le Hors: issue:57 -- identifying an LDP service ←
18:31:43 <cygri> Duplicate of ISSUE-32?
Richard Cyganiak: Duplicate of ISSUE-32? ←
18:31:51 <TallTed> davidwood: several other issues touch on this, but I think it's cleaner to resolve them all generally, than each as a special case
David Wood: several other issues touch on this, but I think it's cleaner to resolve them all generally, than each as a special case ←
18:32:13 <bblfish> do an HTTP GET on the resource ?
Henry Story: do an HTTP GET on the resource ? ←
18:32:19 <davidwood> cygri, please note the text in the issue: "NB: The answer to ISSUE-32 may or may not provide an answer to this issue as well. If so, this issue may be closed concurrently."
David Wood: cygri, please note the text in the issue: "NB: The answer to ISSUE-32 may or may not provide an answer to this issue as well. If so, this issue may be closed concurrently." ←
18:32:26 <bblfish> or have the other resource describe it as a ldp:Resource .
Henry Story: or have the other resource describe it as a ldp:Resource . ←
18:32:33 <SteveBattle> q+
Steve Battle: q+ ←
18:33:23 <Arnaud> ack steveb
Arnaud Le Hors: ack steveb ←
18:36:37 <SteveBattle> Are there precedents for services/servers/resources advertising themselves via an HTTP header?
Steve Battle: Are there precedents for services/servers/resources advertising themselves via an HTTP header? ←
18:37:14 <davidwood> SteveBattle, sure, Web servers tell you what they are.
David Wood: SteveBattle, sure, Web servers tell you what they are. ←
18:37:30 <TallTed> arnaud: "service" to be changed to "service" in the issue
Arnaud Le Hors: "service" to be changed to "server" in the issue ←
18:37:32 <bblfish> q+
Henry Story: q+ ←
18:37:44 <TallTed> Arnaud: barring objection... open issue 57
Arnaud Le Hors: barring objection... open ISSUE-57 ←
18:38:10 <TallTed> s/"service" to be changed to "service"/"service" to be changed to "server"/
18:38:55 <Arnaud> resolved: Open issue-57
18:39:04 <Arnaud> reopen issue-57
Arnaud Le Hors: reopen ISSUE-57 ←
18:39:05 <trackbot> Re-opened ISSUE-57 How can a client determine that it is in communication with an LDP server?.
Trackbot IRC Bot: Re-opened ISSUE-57 How can a client determine that it is in communication with an LDP server?. ←
<tallted> subtopic: ISSUE-58: Property for asserting that complete description of members is included in LDPC representation
18:39:13 <TallTed> issue-58?
18:39:13 <trackbot> ISSUE-58 -- Property for asserting that complete description of members is included in LDPC representation -- raised
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-58 -- Property for asserting that complete description of members is included in LDPC representation -- raised ←
18:39:13 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/58
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/58 ←
18:39:35 <bblfish> how long is the break for?
Henry Story: how long is the break for? ←
18:40:24 <SteveBattle> q+
Steve Battle: q+ ←
18:40:33 <TallTed> Arnaud: [summarizes issue description]
Arnaud Le Hors: [summarizes issue description] ←
18:40:46 <TallTed> +1 open
+1 open ←
18:40:55 <bblfish> ah ok, so this is a bit like an atom:feed containing atom:entry
Henry Story: ah ok, so this is a bit like an atom:feed containing atom:entry ←
18:41:14 <bblfish> so that you get something of a description in the LDPC ?
Henry Story: so that you get something of a description in the LDPC ? ←
18:41:21 <Arnaud> ack bblfish
Arnaud Le Hors: ack bblfish ←
18:41:23 <SteveS> q+
Steve Speicher: q+ ←
18:41:59 <Arnaud> ack steveb
Arnaud Le Hors: ack steveb ←
18:42:06 <cody> q+
Cody Burleson: q+ ←
18:42:23 <TallTed> SteveBattle: is this continuing with LDPCs being valueSets?
Steve Battle: is this continuing with LDPCs being valueSets? ←
18:42:27 <cody> Could use clarification on the meaning of " So that a client doesn't have to dereference each member in order to be sure that it has complete data."
Cody Burleson: Could use clarification on the meaning of " So that a client doesn't have to dereference each member in order to be sure that it has complete data." ←
18:42:33 <JohnArwe> Henry: let's say that your LDPC server has 4 triples about a member. If GETting the LDPC returns 2 of those member's triples, Richard's flag would be off. If the LDPC returns all 4, the flag would be on.
Henry Story: let's say that your LDPC server has 4 triples about a member. If GETting the LDPC returns 2 of those member's triples, Richard's flag would be off. If the LDPC returns all 4, the flag would be on. [ Scribe Assist by John Arwe ] ←
18:42:54 <bblfish> ah ok.
Henry Story: ah ok. ←
18:42:59 <JohnArwe> The flag is essentially an optimization to allow clients to know there is no value in GETing the member; they can, but they will obtain no new triples.
John Arwe: The flag is essentially an optimization to allow clients to know there is no value in GETing the member; they can, but they will obtain no new triples. ←
18:43:19 <SteveBattle> So I've just grokked that value-sets can also contain item-level properties.
Steve Battle: So I've just grokked that value-sets can also contain item-level properties. ←
18:43:27 <TallTed> SteveS: could use the pagination indicators, include next=NULL or similar
Steve Speicher: could use the pagination indicators, include next=NULL or similar ←
18:44:25 <Arnaud> ack steves
Arnaud Le Hors: ack steves ←
18:44:31 <Arnaud> ack cody
Arnaud Le Hors: ack cody ←
18:44:40 <bblfish> It makes sense to open it, but I think it is very odd.
Henry Story: It makes sense to open it, but I think it is very odd. ←
18:44:49 <TallTed> Arnaud: look to example 3 in the spec... cygri wants to know whether there are more triples to be retrieved about <a1> than are present in this example, without GETting <a1>
Arnaud Le Hors: look to example 3 in the spec... cygri wants to know whether there are more triples to be retrieved about <a1> than are present in this example, without GETting <a1> ←
18:44:51 <TallTed> +1 open
+1 open ←
18:44:54 <roger> +1
Roger Menday: +1 ←
18:44:57 <davidwood> +1
David Wood: +1 ←
18:45:00 <SteveS> I was saying have <a1, ldp:nextPage, rdf:nil>
Steve Speicher: I was saying have <a1, ldp:nextPage, rdf:nil> ←
18:45:03 <SteveS> +1
Steve Speicher: +1 ←
18:45:07 <Arnaud> resolved: Open issue-58
18:45:09 <TallTed> Arnaud: objections to opening issue-58? none? open.
Arnaud Le Hors: objections to opening ISSUE-58? none? open. ←
18:45:11 <JohnArwe> +1
18:45:36 <bblfish> the problem I see is that you have an ldp:thisIsAllThereIS , then that is a relation between a document and something.
Henry Story: the problem I see is that you have an ldp:thisIsAllThereIS , then that is a relation between a document and something. ←
18:45:39 <cygri> SteveBattle, the model is that a container is a set of triples where they all have the same s and p. But when you GET a container, it may give you some other triples besides those
Richard Cyganiak: SteveBattle, the model is that a container is a set of triples where they all have the same s and p. But when you GET a container, it may give you some other triples besides those ←
18:45:43 <Arnaud> reopen issue-58
Arnaud Le Hors: reopen ISSUE-58 ←
18:45:43 <trackbot> Re-opened ISSUE-58 Property for asserting that complete description of members is included in LDPC representation.
Trackbot IRC Bot: Re-opened ISSUE-58 Property for asserting that complete description of members is included in LDPC representation. ←
18:45:56 <bblfish> My guess is that you will find merging information about these things a bit odd.
Henry Story: My guess is that you will find merging information about these things a bit odd. ←
18:48:33 <bblfish> ah yes, so how long is the break now?
Henry Story: ah yes, so how long is the break now? ←
18:50:21 <JohnArwe> 15 mins
18:50:30 <JohnArwe> sorry 15 total only 10 left now
John Arwe: sorry 15 total only 10 left now ←
18:56:46 <bblfish> opening some wine here, and preparing dinner
(No events recorded for 6 minutes)
Henry Story: opening some wine here, and preparing dinner ←
19:01:23 <cody> Photos of the F2F2 working group posted to: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Special:ListFiles (Panorama.png.zip, IMG0981.JPG.zip, IMG_0980.JPG.zip, IMG_0979.JPG.zip)
Cody Burleson: Photos of the F2F2 working group posted to: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Special:ListFiles (Panorama.png.zip, IMG0981.JPG.zip, IMG_0980.JPG.zip, IMG_0979.JPG.zip) ←
19:01:32 <davidwood> Nice! Think of us while we are flying :)
David Wood: Nice! Think of us while we are flying :) ←
19:02:17 <SteveBattle> Cygri, even if those triples are defined in separate LDPRs? This behaviour isn't defined for LDPCs (I guess it isn't outlawed).
Steve Battle: Cygri, even if those triples are defined in separate LDPRs? This behaviour isn't defined for LDPCs (I guess it isn't outlawed). ←
19:03:21 <cygri> SteveBattle, I think the NetWorth example in the spec does this (inlining parts of the member descriptions)
Richard Cyganiak: SteveBattle, I think the NetWorth example in the spec does this (inlining parts of the member descriptions) ←
19:05:01 <cygri> q+
Richard Cyganiak: q+ ←
19:05:25 <SteveS> Scribe: SteveS
(Scribe set to Steve Speicher)
19:05:39 <SteveS> Arnaud: Steve is scribe, thank you
Arnaud Le Hors: Steve is scribe, thank you ←
<steves> topic: LDP Specification - Pending Issues (continues)
19:05:50 <davidwood> ISSUE-49?
19:05:50 <trackbot> ISSUE-49 -- Canonical URL - how to communicate its value to clients -- open
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-49 -- Canonical URL - how to communicate its value to clients -- open ←
19:05:50 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/49
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/49 ←
19:05:58 <SteveS> subTopic: ISSUE-49: Canonical URL - how to communicate its value to clients
19:06:28 <SteveS> Ashok: this is not special for LDP and consider removing 4.1.4
Ashok Malhotra: this is not special for LDP and consider removing 4.1.4 ←
19:06:50 <davidwood> q+ to ask whether a server will always have a canonical URL for a resource
David Wood: q+ to ask whether a server will always have a canonical URL for a resource ←
19:07:08 <SteveS> cygri: agree is with Ashok it is not just and LDP problem, consider moving to deployment guide to warn/help implementers
Richard Cyganiak: agree is with Ashok it is not just and LDP problem, consider moving to deployment guide to warn/help implementers ←
19:07:30 <SteveS> sandro: Google supports rel = canonical
Sandro Hawke: Google supports rel = canonical ←
19:07:37 <Arnaud> ack cygri
Arnaud Le Hors: ack cygri ←
19:08:06 <Arnaud> ack david
Arnaud Le Hors: ack david ←
19:08:06 <Zakim> davidwood, you wanted to ask whether a server will always have a canonical URL for a resource
Zakim IRC Bot: davidwood, you wanted to ask whether a server will always have a canonical URL for a resource ←
19:08:11 <SteveS> Ashok: in order to support it the server would need to know what this is
Ashok Malhotra: in order to support it the server would need to know what this is ←
19:08:31 <SteveBattle> cygri, you're correct re: NetWorth example - thanks.
Steve Battle: cygri, you're correct re: NetWorth example - thanks. ←
19:08:34 <SteveS> Arnaud: Ashok, so you are ok with deployment guid?
Arnaud Le Hors: Ashok, so you are ok with deployment guid? ←
19:08:38 <SteveS> Ashok: yes
Ashok Malhotra: yes ←
19:08:44 <sandro> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6596 rel=canonical
Sandro Hawke: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6596 rel=canonical ←
19:08:55 <SteveS> davidwood: ok with it being non-normatively defined
David Wood: ok with it being non-normatively defined ←
19:09:05 <SteveS> sandro: this is new, not even a year old
Sandro Hawke: this is new, not even a year old ←
19:09:20 <SteveS> davidwood: who supports this?
David Wood: who supports this? ←
19:09:26 <SteveS> sandro: servers support it, I think
Sandro Hawke: servers support it, I think ←
19:10:06 <SteveS> sandro: though Google says they prefer it, they prefer 303 redirect
Sandro Hawke: though Google says they prefer it, they prefer 303 redirect ←
19:10:54 <SteveS> davidwood: asking if there is a mechanism, 3xx or link conancial
David Wood: asking if there is a mechanism, 3xx or link conancial ←
19:11:03 <SteveS> Ashok: said support removing it
Ashok Malhotra: said support removing it ←
19:11:38 <SteveS> JohnArwe: Yves pointed out a security issue with different URLs
John Arwe: Yves pointed out a security issue with different URLs ←
19:11:49 <SteveS> …who recommended not to go there
…who recommended not to go there ←
19:12:31 <davidwood> PROPOSAL: Close ISSUE-49 saying that LDP will not further restrict HTTP in this area.
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-49 saying that LDP will not further restrict HTTP in this area. ←
19:13:01 <SteveS> Proposal: CLOSE-49 removing 4.1.4 and consider giving some guidance in the deployment guide
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-49 removing 4.1.4 and consider giving some guidance in the deployment guide ←
19:13:07 <TallTed> +1
Ted Thibodeau: +1 ←
19:13:11 <Ashok> +1
Ashok Malhotra: +1 ←
19:13:16 <SteveBattle> +1
Steve Battle: +1 ←
19:13:19 <sandro> +1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
19:13:19 <nmihindu> +1
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: +1 ←
19:13:21 <mesteban> +1
Miguel Esteban Gutiérrez: +1 ←
19:13:24 <cygri> +1
Richard Cyganiak: +1 ←
19:13:27 <rgarcia> +1
Raúl García Castro: +1 ←
19:13:27 <SteveS> +1
+1 ←
19:13:28 <davidwood> +1
David Wood: +1 ←
19:13:29 <Arnaud> s/CLOSE-49/Close Issue-49/
19:13:30 <krp> +1
Kevin Page: +1 ←
19:13:33 <roger> +1
Roger Menday: +1 ←
19:14:33 <SteveS> davidwood: prefer to have a more descriptive proposal
David Wood: prefer to have a more descriptive proposal ←
19:14:49 <davidwood> PROPOSAL: Close ISSUE-49 saying that LDP will not further restrict HTTP in this area. Remove section 4.1.4 from the spec and consider giving some guidance in the deployment guide.
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-49 saying that LDP will not further restrict HTTP in this area. Remove section 4.1.4 from the spec and consider giving some guidance in the deployment guide. ←
19:15:13 <SteveBattle> +1
Steve Battle: +1 ←
19:15:21 <davidwood> +1
David Wood: +1 ←
19:15:24 <SteveS> RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-49 saying that LDP will not further restrict HTTP in this area. Remove section 4.1.4 from the spec and consider giving some guidance in the deployment guide.
RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-49 saying that LDP will not further restrict HTTP in this area. Remove section 4.1.4 from the spec and consider giving some guidance in the deployment guide. ←
19:15:32 <mesteban> +1
Miguel Esteban Gutiérrez: +1 ←
19:17:05 <SteveS> subTopic: ISSUE-35: POSTing to a container MUST yield a fresh URI
19:17:11 <SteveS> ISSUE-35?
19:17:11 <trackbot> ISSUE-35 -- POSTing to a container MUST yield a fresh URI -- open
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-35 -- POSTing to a container MUST yield a fresh URI -- open ←
19:17:11 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/35
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/35 ←
19:18:02 <SteveS> Arnaud: give some background and origins around delete and previous language about server reusing URLS
Arnaud Le Hors: give some background and origins around delete and previous language about server reusing URLS ←
19:18:42 <TallTed> q+
Ted Thibodeau: q+ ←
19:18:57 <SteveS> cygri: related to previous delete issue but be better to say POSTing to create a resource, it creates a new URL
Richard Cyganiak: related to previous delete issue but be better to say POSTing to create a resource, it creates a new URL ←
19:19:17 <SteveS> …later if server creates another resource, it should never reuse a URL
…later if server creates another resource, it should never reuse a URL ←
19:19:19 <Arnaud> ack tallted
Arnaud Le Hors: ack tallted ←
19:19:53 <SteveS> TallTed: not sure a client would expect this behavior, due to a number of factors such as restarts, restores, etc
Ted Thibodeau: not sure a client would expect this behavior, due to a number of factors such as restarts, restores, etc ←
19:20:25 <SteveS> ericP: it is like w3c doesn't have to honor its URLs
Eric Prud'hommeaux: it is like w3c doesn't have to honor its URLs ←
19:20:50 <SteveS> cygri: if domain changes owner, the new domain will violate if it reuses URLs
Richard Cyganiak: if domain changes owner, the new domain will violate if it reuses URLs ←
19:21:19 <SteveS> TallTed: hard to what the old server, app was hosting and never use
Ted Thibodeau: hard to what the old server, app was hosting and never use ←
19:22:42 <SteveBattle> What about weakining this to SHOULD rather than MUST?
Steve Battle: What about weakining this to SHOULD rather than MUST? ←
19:22:42 <bblfish> q+
Henry Story: q+ ←
19:22:57 <Arnaud> ack bblfish
Arnaud Le Hors: ack bblfish ←
19:22:59 <SteveS> cygri: not saying related to delete, just focused on new URLs for POST
Richard Cyganiak: not saying related to delete, just focused on new URLs for POST ←
19:23:16 <SteveS> bblfish: should this be a should? must seems to strong
Henry Story: should this be a should? must seems to strong ←
19:24:02 <Arnaud> q+
Arnaud Le Hors: q+ ←
19:24:06 <SteveS> ericP: if relaxed to should, client can't depend on the behavior
Eric Prud'hommeaux: if relaxed to should, client can't depend on the behavior ←
19:25:14 <Arnaud> ack Arnaud
Arnaud Le Hors: ack Arnaud ←
19:25:16 <SteveS> cygri: there are an extreme to have some unexpected failures
Richard Cyganiak: there are an extreme to have some unexpected failures ←
19:25:37 <rgarcia> q+
Raúl García Castro: q+ ←
19:25:49 <SteveS> Arnaud: wonders if this is a quality of service thing, like coolURIs don't change
Arnaud Le Hors: wonders if this is a quality of service thing, like coolURIs don't change ←
19:26:21 <TallTed> q+
Ted Thibodeau: q+ ←
19:26:30 <Arnaud> ack rgarcia
Arnaud Le Hors: ack rgarcia ←
19:26:34 <SteveS> cygri: if you want to implement a reliable service, a should sounds weak
Richard Cyganiak: if you want to implement a reliable service, a should sounds weak ←
19:26:59 <SteveS> rgarcia: it is impossible to test a server violates it
Raúl García Castro: it is impossible to test a server violates it ←
19:27:16 <SteveS> sandro: it is hard but if you get a dupe you know it failed
Sandro Hawke: it is hard but if you get a dupe you know it failed ←
19:27:18 <Arnaud> ack tallted
Arnaud Le Hors: ack tallted ←
19:27:45 <SteveS> davidwood: hard for a server to keep track of it
David Wood: hard for a server to keep track of it ←
19:27:52 <SteveS> sandro: there are a number of ways to keep track of it
Sandro Hawke: there are a number of ways to keep track of it ←
19:28:16 <SteveS> TallTed: we are forbidding reuse of URLs on POST but not of PUT
Ted Thibodeau: we are forbidding reuse of URLs on POST but not of PUT ←
19:28:36 <davidwood> This is already a best practice ("Cool URIs don't change", PURLs, "Cool URIs for the Semantic Web"…)
David Wood: This is already a best practice ("Cool URIs don't change", PURLs, "Cool URIs for the Semantic Web"…) ←
19:28:40 <SteveS> cygri: POST we say a URLs is minted, PUT is replacing the state
Richard Cyganiak: POST we say a URLs is minted, PUT is replacing the state ←
19:28:51 <davidwood> LDP shouldn't separately define this, I think.
David Wood: LDP shouldn't separately define this, I think. ←
19:29:22 <SteveS> TallTed: there is no difference if the content is replaced behind it, using PUT
Ted Thibodeau: there is no difference if the content is replaced behind it, using PUT ←
19:29:28 <JohnArwe> q?
19:30:18 <SteveS> davidwood: thinks this is an HTTP issue and not a LDP thing
David Wood: thinks this is an HTTP issue and not a LDP thing ←
19:30:20 <Arnaud> strawpoll: add 1) MUST not reuse 2) SHOULD not reuse 3) nothing
STRAWPOLL: add 1) MUST not reuse 2) SHOULD not reuse 3) nothing ←
19:30:41 <bblfish> +1,+1,0
Henry Story: +1,+1,0 ←
19:30:41 <TallTed> -1, +1, 0
Ted Thibodeau: -1, +1, 0 ←
19:31:01 <rgarcia> -1, +1, 0
Raúl García Castro: -1, +1, 0 ←
19:31:09 <SteveBattle> 0, +1, 0
Steve Battle: 0, +1, 0 ←
19:31:11 <SteveS> sandro: it is valid HTTP POST cases that using URIs
Sandro Hawke: it is valid HTTP POST cases that using URIs ←
19:31:16 <nmihindu> -0, +1, 0
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: -0, +1, 0 ←
19:31:23 <sandro> +1 -0.99 -0.99
Sandro Hawke: +1 -0.99 -0.99 ←
19:31:30 <cygri> +1 -1 -1
Richard Cyganiak: +1 -1 -1 ←
19:31:30 <mesteban> 0, +1, 0
Miguel Esteban Gutiérrez: 0, +1, 0 ←
19:31:30 <roger> 0, +1, +1
Roger Menday: 0, +1, +1 ←
19:31:36 <davidwood> -1 0 +1
David Wood: -1 0 +1 ←
19:31:40 <SteveS> +1, +1, 0
+1, +1, 0 ←
19:31:58 <Ashok> 0,1,1
Ashok Malhotra: 0,1,1 ←
19:32:00 <SteveS> JohnArwe: there is some discussion of this in the delete section
John Arwe: there is some discussion of this in the delete section ←
19:32:20 <ericP> +1, -1, 01
Eric Prud'hommeaux: +1, -1, 01 ←
19:32:34 <JohnArwe> +1,0,-0.5
19:32:35 <ericP> +1, -1, -1
Eric Prud'hommeaux: +1, -1, -1 ←
19:32:53 <krp> +1,+1,0
Kevin Page: +1,+1,0 ←
19:33:51 <SteveS> cygri: as a server implementer I have a good reason to not do this, if should it allow servers to reuse and they'd comply
Richard Cyganiak: as a server implementer I have a good reason to not do this, if should it allow servers to reuse and they'd comply ←
19:33:54 <davidwood> RFC 2119:
David Wood: RFC 2119: ←
19:33:54 <davidwood> SHOULD This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there
David Wood: SHOULD This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there ←
19:33:54 <davidwood> may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a
David Wood: may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a ←
19:33:54 <davidwood> particular item, but the full implications must be understood and
David Wood: particular item, but the full implications must be understood and ←
19:33:54 <davidwood> carefully weighed before choosing a different course.
David Wood: carefully weighed before choosing a different course. ←
19:34:06 <davidwood> https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119
David Wood: https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119 ←
19:34:36 <davidwood> MAY This word, or the adjective "OPTIONAL", mean that an item is
David Wood: MAY This word, or the adjective "OPTIONAL", mean that an item is ←
19:34:36 <davidwood> truly optional.
David Wood: truly optional. ←
19:34:57 <SteveS> TallTed: fact that content has same abs urls, that server needs to keep track it and generate things unique
Ted Thibodeau: fact that content has same abs urls, that server needs to keep track it and generate things unique ←
19:35:05 <SteveBattle> I'm convinved by Ted's argument. When you completely reset a server it should have no memory of it's previous state.
Steve Battle: I'm convinved by Ted's argument. When you completely reset a server it should have no memory of it's previous state. ←
19:35:19 <SteveS> cygri: it is possible to keep track of every resource you create
Richard Cyganiak: it is possible to keep track of every resource you create ←
19:35:47 <bblfish> everybody is speaking together
Henry Story: everybody is speaking together ←
19:35:50 <SteveS> sandro: gets complicated if support Slug or client indicated URLs
Sandro Hawke: gets complicated if support Slug or client indicated URLs ←
19:35:59 <SteveBattle> Yes - this should happen during the lifetime of a server instance. But not beyond that lifetime.
Steve Battle: Yes - this should happen during the lifetime of a server instance. But not beyond that lifetime. ←
19:36:15 <davidwood> bblfish, we need a Babel Fish :)
David Wood: bblfish, we need a Babel Fish :) ←
19:36:16 <SteveS> Arnaud: there is a burden, it is reasonable for servers to do this
Arnaud Le Hors: there is a burden, it is reasonable for servers to do this ←
19:36:23 <bblfish> :-)
Henry Story: :-) ←
19:36:56 <SteveS> ericP: LDP wouldn't be very useful if URIs were reused, it does come down to URIs
Eric Prud'hommeaux: LDP wouldn't be very useful if URIs were reused, it does come down to URIs ←
19:37:23 <sandro> q+
Sandro Hawke: q+ ←
19:37:24 <SteveS> on the RDF validator, if you want a picture you get with a URI, which only lasts for about 10 minutes
on the RDF validator, if you want a picture you get with a URI, which only lasts for about 10 minutes ←
19:38:03 <Arnaud> ack sandro
Arnaud Le Hors: ack sandro ←
19:38:38 <bblfish> good idea +1 for sandro
Henry Story: good idea +1 for sandro ←
19:38:39 <SteveS> sandro: in the spirit of consensus we could follow the SHOULD statement
Sandro Hawke: in the spirit of consensus we could follow the SHOULD statement ←
19:39:01 <SteveS> explaining the cases which it is allowed to violate
explaining the cases which it is allowed to violate ←
19:39:16 <sandro> sandro: ... with a very strongly worded explanation of WHY
Sandro Hawke: ... with a very strongly worded explanation of WHY [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
19:39:27 <cygri> q+
Richard Cyganiak: q+ ←
19:39:43 <Arnaud> ack cygri
Arnaud Le Hors: ack cygri ←
19:39:48 <SteveS> Arnaud: wants to hear from those who think it is so expensive to do
Arnaud Le Hors: wants to hear from those who think it is so expensive to do ←
19:41:01 <nmihindu> +q
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: +q ←
19:41:13 <TallTed> 6. Guidance in the use of these Imperatives
Ted Thibodeau: 6. Guidance in the use of these Imperatives ←
19:41:13 <TallTed> Imperatives of the type defined in this memo must be used with care
Ted Thibodeau: Imperatives of the type defined in this memo must be used with care ←
19:41:13 <TallTed> and sparingly. In particular, they MUST only be used where it is
Ted Thibodeau: and sparingly. In particular, they MUST only be used where it is ←
19:41:13 <TallTed> actually required for interoperation or to limit behavior which has
Ted Thibodeau: actually required for interoperation or to limit behavior which has ←
19:41:14 <TallTed> potential for causing harm (e.g., limiting retransmisssions) For
Ted Thibodeau: potential for causing harm (e.g., limiting retransmisssions) For ←
19:41:14 <TallTed> example, they must not be used to try to impose a particular method
Ted Thibodeau: example, they must not be used to try to impose a particular method ←
19:41:16 <TallTed> on implementors where the method is not required for
Ted Thibodeau: on implementors where the method is not required for ←
19:41:18 <TallTed> interoperability.
Ted Thibodeau: interoperability. ←
19:41:22 <SteveS> cygri: understanding that certain acts of nature or things hard to predict will affect many of the conformance statements, and size of data, running out of storage, etc
Richard Cyganiak: understanding that certain acts of nature or things hard to predict will affect many of the conformance statements, and size of data, running out of storage, etc ←
19:42:41 <Arnaud> ack nmihindu
Arnaud Le Hors: ack nmihindu ←
19:42:45 <SteveS> …other factors like domain moves
…other factors like domain moves ←
19:43:26 <davidwood> TallTed: This is not an appropriate use for MUST in accordance with RFC 2119 because it is not required for interoperabilty.
Ted Thibodeau: This is not an appropriate use for MUST in accordance with RFC 2119 because it is not required for interoperabilty. [ Scribe Assist by David Wood ] ←
19:43:33 <SteveS> nmihindu: a use case, i work for upm, I no longer work for them so they delete my URI and then I rejoin and they may recreate a URI for me
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: a use case, i work for upm, I no longer work for them so they delete my URI and then I rejoin and they may recreate a URI for me ←
19:44:35 <SteveS> cygri: it is possible to use something like PUT to backfill a resource at a previous URI
Richard Cyganiak: it is possible to use something like PUT to backfill a resource at a previous URI ←
19:45:15 <davidwood> The LDP WG ironically redefines Ouroboros
David Wood: The LDP WG ironically redefines Ouroboros ←
19:45:38 <sandro> sandro: we're just talking about the case where you WANT a dispenser of fresh URLs.
Sandro Hawke: we're just talking about the case where you WANT a dispenser of fresh URLs. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
19:45:44 <bblfish> what does HTTP say about POST?
Henry Story: what does HTTP say about POST? ←
19:45:59 <sandro> nothing, bblfish
Sandro Hawke: nothing, bblfish ←
19:46:10 <bblfish> q+
Henry Story: q+ ←
19:46:26 <Arnaud> ack bblfish
Arnaud Le Hors: ack bblfish ←
19:46:29 <sandro> this has nothing to do with HTTP or POST. It's about whether a network service can be defined to hand out fresh URLs.
Sandro Hawke: this has nothing to do with HTTP or POST. It's about whether a network service can be defined to hand out fresh URLs. ←
19:46:35 <TallTed> refresh strawpoll: add 1) MUST not reuse 2) SHOULD not reuse 3) nothing
Ted Thibodeau: refresh strawpoll: add 1) MUST not reuse 2) SHOULD not reuse 3) nothing ←
19:46:38 <SteveS> davidwood: proposing that we let people think about it and come back to it
David Wood: proposing that we let people think about it and come back to it ←
19:46:58 <TallTed> -1, +1, 0
Ted Thibodeau: -1, +1, 0 ←
19:47:02 <SteveBattle> 0, +1, 0
Steve Battle: 0, +1, 0 ←
19:47:05 <cygri> +1 -1 -1
Richard Cyganiak: +1 -1 -1 ←
19:47:06 <SteveS> bblfish: wanted to see if anyone changes
Henry Story: wanted to see if anyone changes ←
19:47:10 <sandro> +1 -.99 -.99
Sandro Hawke: +1 -.99 -.99 ←
19:47:12 <bblfish> +1,+1,-1
Henry Story: +1,+1,-1 ←
19:47:14 <ericP> +1, -1, -1
Eric Prud'hommeaux: +1, -1, -1 ←
19:47:16 <SteveS> +1, +1, 0
+1, +1, 0 ←
19:47:20 <nmihindu> 0, +1, 0
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: 0, +1, 0 ←
19:47:21 <sandro> +1 -.5 -.5
Sandro Hawke: +1 -.5 -.5 ←
19:47:23 <mesteban> 0, +1, -1
Miguel Esteban Gutiérrez: 0, +1, -1 ←
19:47:26 <krp> 0,+1,-0.5
Kevin Page: 0,+1,-0.5 ←
19:47:32 <JohnArwe> no chg
19:47:37 <Ashok> 0,1,1
Ashok Malhotra: 0,1,1 ←
19:47:45 <rgarcia> -1, +1, -1
Raúl García Castro: -1, +1, -1 ←
19:47:49 <cygri> ISSUE-44?
19:47:49 <trackbot> ISSUE-44 -- 4.1.9. is obscure or too restrictive -- open
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-44 -- 4.1.9. is obscure or too restrictive -- open ←
19:47:49 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/44
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/44 ←
19:47:50 <SteveS> subTopic: ISSUE-44: 4.1.9. is obscure or too restrictive
19:50:22 <SteveS> JohnArwe: explains motivation that it is trying to avoid the more complex case
John Arwe: explains motivation that it is trying to avoid the more complex case ←
19:51:18 <SteveS> cygri: thinks that we don't need to say this within the spec or deployment guide
Richard Cyganiak: thinks that we don't need to say this within the spec or deployment guide ←
19:51:19 <davidwood> PROPOSAL: Close ISSUE-44 by removing section 4.1.9 from the spec.
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-44 by removing section 4.1.9 from the spec. ←
19:51:27 <rgarcia> +1
Raúl García Castro: +1 ←
19:51:30 <SteveBattle> +1
Steve Battle: +1 ←
19:51:33 <davidwood> +1
David Wood: +1 ←
19:51:35 <bblfish> +1
Henry Story: +1 ←
19:51:40 <TallTed> +1
Ted Thibodeau: +1 ←
19:51:43 <krp> +1
Kevin Page: +1 ←
19:51:43 <nmihindu> +1
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: +1 ←
19:51:49 <Ashok> +1
Ashok Malhotra: +1 ←
19:51:50 <SteveS> +1
+1 ←
19:51:53 <mesteban> +1
Miguel Esteban Gutiérrez: +1 ←
19:52:01 <JohnArwe> +1
19:52:09 <SteveS> RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-44 by removing section 4.1.9 from the spec.
RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-44 by removing section 4.1.9 from the spec. ←
19:52:33 <SteveS> Arnaud: thanks davidwood you did find an easy one
Arnaud Le Hors: thanks davidwood you did find an easy one ←
19:52:45 <bblfish> Issue-13?
19:52:45 <trackbot> ISSUE-13 -- Include clarifications about BPC representations that include member triples -- open
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-13 -- Include clarifications about BPC representations that include member triples -- open ←
19:52:45 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/13
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/13 ←
19:52:57 <SteveS> subTopic: ISSUE-13: Include clarifications about BPC representations that include member triples
19:53:30 <bblfish> I have had too much wine
Henry Story: I have had too much wine ←
19:54:11 <bblfish> s/$/ Can't follow... (hic)/
Henry Story: s/$/ Can't follow... (hic)/ (warning: replacement failed) ←
19:55:28 <SteveS> PROPOSAL: CLOSE ISSUE-13 as editorial - answering- BPCs can have members that are not BPRs?
PROPOSED: CLOSE ISSUE-13 as editorial - answering- BPCs can have members that are not BPRs? ←
19:55:49 <davidwood> PROPOSAL: Close ISSUE-13 by saying that the spec editor will align sections 4.1.2 and 5.2.6. Also, BPCs can have members that are BPRs.
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-13 by saying that the spec editor will align sections 4.1.2 and 5.2.6. Also, BPCs can have members that are non-BPRs. ←
19:56:28 <davidwood> s/are BPRs/are non-BPRs/
19:57:08 <rgarcia> +1
Raúl García Castro: +1 ←
19:57:08 <SteveS> +1
+1 ←
19:57:10 <davidwood> +1
David Wood: +1 ←
19:57:14 <nmihindu> +1
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: +1 ←
19:57:14 <krp> +1
Kevin Page: +1 ←
19:58:20 <cygri> q+
Richard Cyganiak: q+ ←
19:58:51 <Arnaud> ack cygri
Arnaud Le Hors: ack cygri ←
19:59:09 <SteveS> JohnArwe: spec is silent on this so left open
John Arwe: spec is silent on this so left open ←
19:59:34 <SteveS> cygri: if a client updates/puts triples in the container representation, we should be clear on this.
Richard Cyganiak: if a client updates/puts triples in the container representation, we should be clear on this. ←
19:59:56 <SteveS> …perhaps goes in client deployment guide, highlighting how a client might deal with this
…perhaps goes in client deployment guide, highlighting how a client might deal with this ←
20:01:28 <SteveS> Arnaud: take the first resolution on the first part of it, then 2nd part as updating of resources
Arnaud Le Hors: take the first resolution on the first part of it, then 2nd part as updating of resources ←
20:01:35 <TallTed> PROPOSAL: Address first part of ISSUE-13 by saying that the spec editor will align sections 4.1.2 and 5.2.6. Also, BPCs can have members that are non-BPRs.
PROPOSED: Address first part of ISSUE-13 by saying that the spec editor will align sections 4.1.2 and 5.2.6. Also, BPCs can have members that are non-BPRs. ←
20:03:07 <SteveS> cygri: should probably say that a client should not make this can of request (update resource data through a container) and what it can't
Richard Cyganiak: should probably say that a client should not make this can of request (update resource data through a container) and what it can't ←
20:03:16 <SteveS> seems to be good at saying what a server can do
seems to be good at saying what a server can do ←
20:03:21 <JohnArwe> must step out for mtg now
John Arwe: must step out for mtg now ←
20:03:24 <davidwood> q+ to suggest a path to resolution: Close ISSUE-13's core concern and allow Raul to open a new issue if his other questions aren't answered.
David Wood: q+ to suggest a path to resolution: Close ISSUE-13's core concern and allow Raul to open a new issue if his other questions aren't answered. ←
20:03:44 <TallTed> +1 davidwood
Ted Thibodeau: +1 davidwood ←
20:04:22 <SteveS> Resolved: Address first part of ISSUE-13 by saying that the spec editor will align sections 4.1.2 and 5.2.6. Also, BPCs can have members that are non-BPRs.
RESOLVED: Address first part of ISSUE-13 by saying that the spec editor will align sections 4.1.2 and 5.2.6. Also, BPCs can have members that are non-BPRs. ←
20:04:32 <davidwood> q-
David Wood: q- ←
20:05:59 <SteveBattle> q+
Steve Battle: q+ ←
20:06:07 <davidwood> PROPOSAL: Close the remainder of ISSUE-13 by saying that the membership of BPCs may not be directly modified by clients; membership is modified solely via actions on resources.
PROPOSED: Close the remainder of ISSUE-13 by saying that the membership of BPCs may not be directly modified by clients; membership is modified solely via actions on resources. ←
20:06:58 <TallTed> davidwood - "mimic 5.5.1 from PUT under 5.4 POST and/or 5.8 PATCH"
Ted Thibodeau: davidwood - "mimic 5.5.1 from PUT under 5.4 POST and/or 5.8 PATCH" ←
20:07:00 <TallTed> ?
Ted Thibodeau: ? ←
20:07:11 <bblfish> q+
Henry Story: q+ ←
20:07:38 <Arnaud> ack steveb
Arnaud Le Hors: ack steveb ←
20:07:48 <SteveS> SteveBattle: wonders if it can update data about a container from a resource or about the member resource within a container
Steve Battle: wonders if it can update data about a container from a resource or about the member resource within a container ←
20:08:25 <davidwood> TallTed, yes, I think so
David Wood: TallTed, yes, I think so ←
20:08:27 <SteveS> cygri: explains the container representation in example 2
Richard Cyganiak: explains the container representation in example 2 ←
20:08:46 <Arnaud> ack bblfish
Arnaud Le Hors: ack bblfish ←
20:09:14 <rgarcia> PROPOSAL: Close the remainder of ISSUE-13 by saying that members of a container cannot be updated through PUT/PATCH to a container
PROPOSED: Close the remainder of ISSUE-13 by saying that members of a container cannot be updated through PUT/PATCH to a container ←
20:09:23 <SteveS> bblfish: might be nice to leave patch open a container, where you can patch remove a bunch of members of a container
Henry Story: might be nice to leave patch open a container, where you can patch remove a bunch of members of a container ←
20:09:53 <SteveBattle> -1
Steve Battle: -1 ←
20:10:40 <JohnArwe> henry: the question here is whether or not a put/patch on the container is allowed to modify contents of members. since a container MAY return those member triples on a GET against the container.
Henry Story: the question here is whether or not a put/patch on the container is allowed to modify contents of members. since a container MAY return those member triples on a GET against the container. [ Scribe Assist by John Arwe ] ←
20:11:44 <bblfish> perhaps the solution is to move this remainder to another issue
Henry Story: perhaps the solution is to move this remainder to another issue ←
20:11:51 <bblfish> a more precise one
Henry Story: a more precise one ←
20:12:03 <JohnArwe> +1 to henry
20:12:13 <cygri> PROPOSAL: Close the remainder of ISSUE-13 by saying that servers may refuse to update inlined members through PUT/PATCH to a container
PROPOSED: Close the remainder of ISSUE-13 by saying that servers may refuse to update inlined members through PUT/PATCH to a container ←
20:12:26 <davidwood> +1
David Wood: +1 ←
20:13:02 <SteveS> SteveBattle: think that it is hard to know the boundaries of resources isn't clear, whether to update the container and member resource
Steve Battle: think that it is hard to know the boundaries of resources isn't clear, whether to update the container and member resource ←
20:13:48 <SteveS> cygri: the spec says that a container is only putting member information for convenience on a GET response
Richard Cyganiak: the spec says that a container is only putting member information for convenience on a GET response ←
20:14:18 <SteveS> +1
+1 ←
20:14:20 <sandro> +1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
20:14:23 <rgarcia> +1
Raúl García Castro: +1 ←
20:14:24 <bblfish> ah with the may it's sounds ok
Henry Story: ah with the may it's sounds ok ←
20:14:30 <JohnArwe> +1
20:14:32 <bblfish> +1
Henry Story: +1 ←
20:14:34 <krp> +1
Kevin Page: +1 ←
20:14:34 <nmihindu> +1
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: +1 ←
20:14:35 <TallTed> +1
Ted Thibodeau: +1 ←
20:14:47 <sandro> eric: +1
Eric Prud'hommeaux: +1 [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
20:15:09 <mesteban> -1
Miguel Esteban Gutiérrez: -1 ←
20:15:58 <SteveS> Arnaud: could be cases where the member resources only exist in container rep, such as <#a1>
Arnaud Le Hors: could be cases where the member resources only exist in container rep, such as <#a1> ←
20:16:10 <SteveS> cygri: that is why it is a may, to allow for this
Richard Cyganiak: that is why it is a may, to allow for this ←
20:17:31 <SteveS> Arnaud: declaring no consensus and scribe is expiring
Arnaud Le Hors: declaring no consensus and scribe is expiring ←
<steves>topic: Wrap-up
20:18:04 <SteveS> Arnaud: on Monday we have informal call
Arnaud Le Hors: on Monday we have informal call ←
20:18:25 <SteveS> will hope to have minutes out (but you want be able to see it if he doesn't)
will hope to have minutes out (but you want be able to see it if he doesn't) ←
20:18:40 <SteveS> Arnaud: meeting adjourned
Arnaud Le Hors: meeting adjourned ←
20:18:42 <bblfish> ok, thanks all folks.
Henry Story: ok, thanks all folks. ←
20:18:49 <bblfish> enjoy your evening.
Henry Story: enjoy your evening. ←
20:18:53 <mesteban> bye.
Miguel Esteban Gutiérrez: bye. ←
20:18:58 <Zakim> -bblfish
Zakim IRC Bot: -bblfish ←
20:19:04 <JohnArwe> night henry
20:19:08 <TallTed> for a bit of RDF fun, http://chatlogs.planetrdf.com/swig/2013-03-15
Ted Thibodeau: for a bit of RDF fun, http://chatlogs.planetrdf.com/swig/2013-03-15 ←
20:37:25 <sandro> RRSAgent, pointer?
(No events recorded for 18 minutes)
Sandro Hawke: RRSAgent, pointer? ←
20:37:25 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2013/03/15-ldp-irc#T20-37-25
RRSAgent IRC Bot: See http://www.w3.org/2013/03/15-ldp-irc#T20-37-25 ←
Formatted by CommonScribe