edit

Linked Data Platform (LDP) Working Group Teleconference

Minutes of 19 June 2013

Agenda
http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/F2F3#Day_2_-_Wednesday_June_19
Present
John Arwe, Steve Speicher, Raúl García Castro, Arnaud Le Hors, Miel Vander Sande, Ashok Malhotra, Nandana Mihindukulasooriya, Sandro Hawke, Eric Prud'hommeaux, Henry Story, Cody Burleson, Miguel Esteban Gutiérrez, Roger Menday, Kevin Page, Yves Lafon, Steve Battle
Chair
Arnaud Le Hors
Scribe
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya, Raúl García Castro, Roger Menday, Cody Burleson
IRC Log
Original
Resolutions
  1. Change title of deployment guide to "LDP Best Practices and Guidelines" link
  2. Close Issue-80 by defining a new HTTP header Accept-Post whose value is a media type list to communicate which media types the server accepts when creating resources via HTTP POST link
  3. We won't do anything with Accept-Put for now link
  4. Close issue-32, addressed by closing related issues (80, etc.) link
  5. Close Issue-17 and put it on the wish list. link
  6. Closed Issue-79, by adding that on creating a new member resource using POST, LDP servers MAY add a triple a la : <> ldp:created <newly_created_resource> link
  7. Closed Issue-73, rendered irrelevant by resolution of Issue-79 link
  8. Close Issue-77, remove section 4.1.5 and add it as a SHOULD to the best practices doc link
  9. Close Issue-72, add ldp:membershipObject to allow overriding the object of the membership triple that gets added when the container creates a new member. LDP constrains the behavior only in the case where the input document contains 0:1 triples whose predicate p is the ldp:membershipObject 's object. link
  10. Close Issue-68, doing nothing. The page size can change from one page to another based on the application logic. link
Topics
07:03:39 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/06/19-ldp-irc

RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/06/19-ldp-irc

07:03:41 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public

Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, make logs public

07:03:43 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be LDP

Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, this will be LDP

07:03:43 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_LDP(F2F)2:30AM scheduled to start 33 minutes ago

Zakim IRC Bot: ok, trackbot; I see SW_LDP(F2F)2:30AM scheduled to start 33 minutes ago

07:03:44 <trackbot> Meeting: Linked Data Platform (LDP) Working Group Teleconference
07:03:44 <trackbot> Date: 19 June 2013
07:10:43 <Arnaud> agenda: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/F2F3#Day_2_-_Wednesday_June_19
07:11:01 <nmihindu> scribe: nmihindu

(No events recorded for 7 minutes)

(Scribe set to Nandana Mihindukulasooriya)

07:11:13 <Arnaud> chair: Arnaud
<Arnaud> present: JohnArwe, SteveS, rgarcia, Arnaud, mielvds, Ashok, nmihindu, sandro, ericp, bblfish, cody, mesteban, roger, krp, yves, stevebattle
07:14:59 <nmihindu> Arnaud: we will start discussing the issues later so that people connecting from the US can also participate

Arnaud Le Hors: we will start discussing the issues later so that people connecting from the US can also participate

07:15:10 <nmihindu> Topic: Access Control WG Note - steps towards FWD

1. Access Control WG Note - steps towards FWD

07:15:22 <nmihindu> Arnaud: what is the status ?

Arnaud Le Hors: what is the status ?

07:15:24 <bblfish> where is the note?

Henry Story: where is the note?

07:15:46 <nmihindu> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/AccessControl

http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/AccessControl

07:16:52 <nmihindu> ashok: we have the note, we need to get it reviewed by the WG

Ashok Malhotra: we have the note, we need to get it reviewed by the WG

07:17:53 <nmihindu> Arnaud: we can give an action item for getting this note reviewed

Arnaud Le Hors: we can give an action item for getting this note reviewed

07:18:11 <nmihindu> ashok: Ted was interested in reviewing the note

Ashok Malhotra: Ted was interested in reviewing the note

07:18:55 <nmihindu> mesteban: what is the deadline for reviewing the note ?

Miguel Esteban Gutiérrez: what is the deadline for reviewing the note ?

07:19:24 <nmihindu> ashok: normally it is two weeks, but it can take more

Ashok Malhotra: normally it is two weeks, but it can take more

07:20:12 <nmihindu> Arnaud: our priority is the spec, other things come second

Arnaud Le Hors: our priority is the spec, other things come second

07:20:35 <nmihindu> Arnaud: Ted and mesteban can review the document

Arnaud Le Hors: Ted and mesteban can review the document

07:20:35 <Arnaud> action: mesteban to review and comment the WG Access Control draft

ACTION: mesteban to review and comment the WG Access Control draft

07:20:35 <trackbot> Created ACTION-76 - Review and comment the WG Access Control draft [on Miguel Esteban Gutiérrez - due 2013-06-26].

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-76 - Review and comment the WG Access Control draft [on Miguel Esteban Gutiérrez - due 2013-06-26].

07:21:05 <Arnaud> action: Ted to review and comment the WG Access Control draft

ACTION: Ted to review and comment the WG Access Control draft

07:21:05 <trackbot> Created ACTION-77 - Review and comment the WG Access Control draft [on Ted Thibodeau - due 2013-06-26].

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-77 - Review and comment the WG Access Control draft [on Ted Thibodeau - due 2013-06-26].

07:23:08 <nmihindu> Arnaud: deadline for reviewing these document will be 1 month

Arnaud Le Hors: deadline for reviewing these document will be 1 month

07:23:18 <nmihindu> ... anything more to discuss on this ?

... anything more to discuss on this ?

07:23:52 <nmihindu> Topic: Deployment Guide - steps towards FWD

2. Deployment Guide - steps towards FWD

07:23:58 <bblfish> where is the deployment guide?

Henry Story: where is the deployment guide?

07:24:15 <Arnaud> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Deployment_Guide

Arnaud Le Hors: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Deployment_Guide

07:26:06 <nmihindu> bblfish: what is the difference between the deployment guide and best practices ?

Henry Story: what is the difference between the deployment guide and best practices ?

07:26:39 <nmihindu> Arnaud: we need to find an editor for the deployment guide ?

Arnaud Le Hors: we need to find an editor for the deployment guide ?

07:27:11 <nmihindu> Ashok: what is the difference between the primer and the deployment guide ?

Ashok Malhotra: what is the difference between the primer and the deployment guide ?

07:28:05 <nmihindu> Arnaud: Primer is the primarily for users and the deployment guide is mainly for implimenters

Arnaud Le Hors: Primer is the primarily for users and the deployment guide is mainly for implimenters

07:28:13 <Zakim> SW_LDP(F2F)2:30AM has now started

Zakim IRC Bot: SW_LDP(F2F)2:30AM has now started

07:28:20 <Zakim> +m

Zakim IRC Bot: +m

07:28:33 <nmihindu> ... the goals and the audience are different

... the goals and the audience are different

07:29:29 <nmihindu> ... we moved some stuff from the spec to the deployment guide

... we moved some stuff from the spec to the deployment guide

07:29:54 <nmihindu> Ashok: why did we move datatypes from the spec to deployment guide ?

Ashok Malhotra: why did we move datatypes from the spec to deployment guide ?

07:30:04 <nmihindu> q+

q+

07:30:43 <Arnaud> ack nmihindu

Arnaud Le Hors: ack nmihindu

07:30:45 <bblfish> q?

Henry Story: q?

07:34:28 <nmihindu> Arnaud: there were things in the spec that would better fit into the deployment guide, so we moved them from the spec to the deployment guide

Arnaud Le Hors: there were things in the spec that would better fit into the deployment guide, so we moved them from the spec to the deployment guide

07:35:17 <nmihindu> ... spec defines the conformance and and the deployment guide shows best practices

... spec defines the conformance and and the deployment guide shows best practices

07:36:35 <nmihindu> cody: I can help to do the editorial stuff and organizing it better

Cody Burleson: I can help to do the editorial stuff and organizing it better

07:37:45 <nmihindu> cody: is there a deadline for this ?

Cody Burleson: is there a deadline for this ?

07:38:12 <nmihindu> Arnaud: we don't have a specific deadline as per now

Arnaud Le Hors: we don't have a specific deadline as per now

07:38:23 <Ashok> Re. RDF datatypes, here is a useful document: http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-xsch-datatypes/

Ashok Malhotra: Re. RDF datatypes, here is a useful document: http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-xsch-datatypes/

07:39:07 <nmihindu> Arnaud: we can make cody the primary editor and nmihindu to help

Arnaud Le Hors: we can make cody the primary editor and nmihindu to help

07:39:14 <cody>  Confirmed: I will be the primary editor for Deployment Guide with Nandana as assist.

Cody Burleson: Confirmed: I will be the primary editor for Deployment Guide with Nandana as assist.

07:40:13 <nmihindu> Arnaud: any more issues discuss on this topic ?

Arnaud Le Hors: any more issues discuss on this topic ?

07:40:35 <nmihindu> SteveS: the name deployment guide is confusing

Steve Speicher: the name deployment guide is confusing

07:40:54 <nmihindu> Arnaud: we can change the name now, there are few proposals in the wiki

Arnaud Le Hors: we can change the name now, there are few proposals in the wiki

07:41:28 <nmihindu> cody: deployment in software is very different from what we have in the document

Cody Burleson: deployment in software is very different from what we have in the document

07:41:58 <nmihindu> cody: LDP best practise and guidelines ?

Cody Burleson: LDP best practise and guidelines ?

07:41:58 <bblfish> suggested title: LDP Best Practices

Henry Story: suggested title: LDP Best Practices

07:42:12 <bblfish> suggested title: LDP Best Practices and guidelines

Henry Story: suggested title: LDP Best Practices and guidelines

07:42:43 <SteveS> I'm good with: LDP Best Practices and Guidelines

Steve Speicher: I'm good with: LDP Best Practices and Guidelines

07:43:27 <nmihindu> bblfish: deployment is more about publishing your data

Henry Story: deployment is more about publishing your data

07:44:24 <nmihindu> Arnaud: LDP best practices is generic enough to cover everything we have in the document

Arnaud Le Hors: LDP best practices is generic enough to cover everything we have in the document

07:45:56 <bblfish> Proposal: A: LDP Best Practices B: LDP Best Practices and Guidelines

PROPOSED: A: LDP Best Practices B: LDP Best Practices and Guidelines

07:46:05 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Change title of deployment guide to "LDP Best Practices and Guidelines"

PROPOSED: Change title of deployment guide to "LDP Best Practices and Guidelines"

07:46:07 <rgarcia> B

Raúl García Castro: B

07:46:11 <bblfish> A

Henry Story: A

07:46:23 <krp> A

Kevin Page: A

07:46:29 <cody> A

Cody Burleson: A

07:46:40 <cody> No B

Cody Burleson: No B

07:46:45 <rgarcia> I can perfectly live with A

Raúl García Castro: I can perfectly live with A

07:46:46 <cody> Its B!

Cody Burleson: Its B!

07:46:57 <mielvds> A

Miel Vander Sande: A

07:47:08 <SteveS> B

Steve Speicher: B

07:47:11 <nmihindu> B, can live with A

B, can live with A

07:47:23 <mesteban> B

Miguel Esteban Gutiérrez: B

07:47:51 <SteveS> I can live with A, say +0.51 B, +0.49 A

Steve Speicher: I can live with A, say +0.51 B, +0.49 A

07:48:48 <nmihindu> rgarcia: let's let cody decide

Raúl García Castro: let's let cody decide

07:49:05 <Arnaud> Resolved: Change title of deployment guide to "LDP Best Practices and Guidelines"

RESOLVED: Change title of deployment guide to "LDP Best Practices and Guidelines"

07:50:08 <nmihindu> Topic: Test Suite & Validator - steps to completion

3. Test Suite & Validator - steps to completion

07:50:46 <nmihindu> Arnaud: it would have been better if ericP was here

Arnaud Le Hors: it would have been better if ericP was here

07:50:50 <SteveS> ericP you awake?

Steve Speicher: ericP you awake?

07:51:17 <nmihindu> rgarcia: I will give an overview and the next steps

Raúl García Castro: I will give an overview and the next steps

07:52:26 <rgarcia> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/default/Test%20Cases/LDP%20Test%20Cases.html

Raúl García Castro: https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/default/Test%20Cases/LDP%20Test%20Cases.html

07:53:42 <nmihindu> rgarcia: we have defined test cases for core LDP features - all the MUSTs in the spec

Raúl García Castro: we have defined test cases for core LDP features - all the MUSTs in the spec

07:54:07 <nmihindu> rgarcia: explaining the current status of the document

Raúl García Castro: explaining the current status of the document

07:55:34 <nmihindu> ... the document defines the test cases and result and they are linked for traceability

... the document defines the test cases and result and they are linked for traceability

07:56:47 <nmihindu> ... the tests can be run by a software automatically or manually and the results can be submitted

... the tests can be run by a software automatically or manually and the results can be submitted

07:57:29 <nmihindu> ... In the spec, we have both testable requirements and non-testable requirements

... In the spec, we have both testable requirements and non-testable requirements

07:57:49 <nmihindu> ... it is better to have testable requirements

... it is better to have testable requirements

07:59:24 <nmihindu> ... there are some ambiguities in the spec, we need to remove them to make all the requirements are testable

... there are some ambiguities in the spec, we need to remove them to make all the requirements are testable

08:00:45 <nmihindu> Arnaud: this for implementaters to test their implementations

Arnaud Le Hors: this for implementaters to test their implementations

08:01:03 <nmihindu> ... not a test harness

... not a test harness

08:02:16 <nmihindu> mesteban: we already discussed this, there are a lot issues testing application specific LDP implementations

Miguel Esteban Gutiérrez: we already discussed this, there are a lot issues testing application specific LDP implementations

08:05:17 <nmihindu> bblfish: test cases can help to find the problematic areas of the spec

Henry Story: test cases can help to find the problematic areas of the spec

08:05:53 <nmihindu> rgarcia: at the moment, we cover all the MUSTs but not different compliance levels etc.

Raúl García Castro: at the moment, we cover all the MUSTs but not different compliance levels etc.

08:06:24 <nmihindu> Arnaud: how much are we missing ? Paging, Sorting ?

Arnaud Le Hors: how much are we missing ? Paging, Sorting ?

08:07:03 <nmihindu> rgarcia: we are missing the SHOULDs

Raúl García Castro: we are missing the SHOULDs

08:07:28 <nmihindu> Arnaud: Is anybody using the test suite already ?

Arnaud Le Hors: Is anybody using the test suite already ?

08:08:03 <nmihindu> ... it would be interesting to use it and provide feedback

... it would be interesting to use it and provide feedback

08:09:09 <nmihindu> mesteban: we can not have a test harness for application specific LDP implementations

Miguel Esteban Gutiérrez: we can not have a test harness for application specific LDP implementations

08:09:30 <nmihindu> Arnaud: we have at least have one test harness for vanilla implementations

Arnaud Le Hors: we have at least have one test harness for vanilla implementations

08:10:07 <nmihindu> mesteban: if the developers can provide their data, we can provide a SPI for executing the tests

Miguel Esteban Gutiérrez: if the developers can provide their data, we can provide a SPI for executing the tests

08:10:57 <nmihindu> Arnaud: we need at least two implementations compliant with the spec

Arnaud Le Hors: we need at least two implementations compliant with the spec

08:13:06 <nmihindu> Arnaud: we need to find people responsible for coming up with a harness and generate the report

Arnaud Le Hors: we need to find people responsible for coming up with a harness and generate the report

08:13:17 <bblfish> Alex Bertails had promised to work on the implementation for the test harness ( using Banana RDF possibly )

Henry Story: Alex Bertails had promised to work on the implementation for the test harness ( using Banana RDF possibly )

08:14:41 <nmihindu> rgarcia: the current tests can be run manually and provide the results to us

Raúl García Castro: the current tests can be run manually and provide the results to us

08:16:03 <nmihindu> cody: we need to define a standard format for reporting the results

Cody Burleson: we need to define a standard format for reporting the results

08:16:31 <nmihindu> rgarcia: it is already defined in the document

Raúl García Castro: it is already defined in the document

08:17:06 <nmihindu> bblfish: I can volunteer to provide a test harness

Henry Story: I can volunteer to provide a test harness

08:17:16 <bblfish> with the help of alex bertails.

Henry Story: with the help of alex bertails.

08:17:18 <bblfish> :-)

Henry Story: :-)

08:17:22 <bblfish> ( but will do it )

Henry Story: ( but will do it )

08:17:30 <roger> +q

Roger Menday: +q

08:17:51 <Arnaud> ack roger

Arnaud Le Hors: ack roger

08:18:15 <mielvds> I can contribute on @bblfish his github repo

Miel Vander Sande: I can contribute on @bblfish his github repo

08:18:20 <nmihindu> Arnaud: we can provide a harness for vanilla implementations and the application specific LDP servers can start from there and define their own

Arnaud Le Hors: we can provide a harness for vanilla implementations and the application specific LDP servers can start from there and define their own

08:18:47 <bblfish> I'll post this to the group. Will use banana-ref https://github.com/w3c/banana-rdf

Henry Story: I'll post this to the group. Will use banana-ref https://github.com/w3c/banana-rdf

08:18:53 <nmihindu> roger: other standards do interop fests, can we do something like that ?

Roger Menday: other standards do interop fests, can we do something like that ?

08:19:45 <nmihindu> Arnaud: we can do that, it is always helpful to improve interoperability and also find ambiguities in the spec

Arnaud Le Hors: we can do that, it is always helpful to improve interoperability and also find ambiguities in the spec

08:20:53 <nmihindu> Arnaud: how we can improve the test suite to include conformance, affordances etc ?

Arnaud Le Hors: how we can improve the test suite to include conformance, affordances etc ?

08:21:48 <nmihindu> ... we define the different conformance levels with names, we can make set of tests to cover specific conformance

... we define the different conformance levels with names, we can make set of tests to cover specific conformance

08:22:54 <nmihindu> rgarcia: it makes more sense to have separate them as modules, so they are not built on top each other but rather can be orthogonal

Raúl García Castro: it makes more sense to have separate them as modules, so they are not built on top each other but rather can be orthogonal

08:23:55 <SteveS> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/default/ldp.html#http-patch

Steve Speicher: https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/default/ldp.html#http-patch

08:23:59 <nmihindu> bblfish: can you provide an example of specific spec sections which are not testable ?

Henry Story: can you provide an example of specific spec sections which are not testable ?

08:25:51 <nmihindu> rgarcia: we have you MAY implement feature X, and then SHOULD. It is better to say if you implement feature X, then you MUST DO these

Raúl García Castro: we have you MAY implement feature X, and then SHOULD. It is better to say if you implement feature X, then you MUST DO these

08:26:21 <bblfish> q?

Henry Story: q?

08:26:22 <bblfish> q+

Henry Story: q+

08:27:32 <Arnaud> ack bblfish

Arnaud Le Hors: ack bblfish

08:27:40 <nmihindu> ... it is hard to check the pre-conditions at the moment, for example whether we can do PUT on a resource

... it is hard to check the pre-conditions at the moment, for example whether we can do PUT on a resource

08:29:15 <nmihindu> Arnaud: do you think some of the SHOULDs must be changed to MUSTs ?

Arnaud Le Hors: do you think some of the SHOULDs must be changed to MUSTs ?

08:31:04 <nmihindu> ... in a way, if you implement some feature (or a module), then you MUST and MUST NOT do several things

... in a way, if you implement some feature (or a module), then you MUST and MUST NOT do several things

08:31:20 <nmihindu> ... we can reduce the number of SHOULDs

... we can reduce the number of SHOULDs

08:34:28 <nmihindu> JohnArwe: if we organize the spec like modules, it could be helpful to the implementors to only focus on specific modules they would like to implement

John Arwe: if we organize the spec like modules, it could be helpful to the implementors to only focus on specific modules they would like to implement

08:37:09 <nmihindu> Coffee break !!

Coffee break !!

08:55:35 <roger> back from coffee

(No events recorded for 18 minutes)

Roger Menday: back from coffee

08:57:21 <Arnaud> Zakim, who's on the phone?

Arnaud Le Hors: Zakim, who's on the phone?

08:57:21 <Zakim> On the phone I see m

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see m

08:58:42 <Zakim> +[GVoice]

Zakim IRC Bot: +[GVoice]

08:58:48 <ericP> Zakim, [GVoice] is me

Eric Prud'hommeaux: Zakim, [GVoice] is me

08:58:48 <Zakim> +ericP; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +ericP; got it

09:00:25 <rgarcia> scribe: rgarcia

(Scribe set to Raúl García Castro)

09:01:25 <rgarcia> ericP: I may implement a test harness, but maybe not in time

Eric Prud'hommeaux: I may implement a test harness, but maybe not in time

09:01:49 <rgarcia> ashok: Eric, did you implement something for RDB2RDF?

Ashok Malhotra: Eric, did you implement something for RDB2RDF?

09:02:04 <rgarcia> ericP: That case was much simpler

Eric Prud'hommeaux: That case was much simpler

09:04:49 <rgarcia> Arnaud: The point is that if someone writes the test harness for a generic LDP server other people can reuse it, even for the domain-specific LDP servers

Arnaud Le Hors: The point is that if someone writes the test harness for a generic LDP server other people can reuse it, even for the domain-specific LDP servers

09:05:29 <rgarcia> bblfish: I plan to implement a test harness

Henry Story: I plan to implement a test harness

09:06:18 <rgarcia> ericP: Alexandre said that he was going to implement something but would be quite specific, maybe not of value for others

Eric Prud'hommeaux: Alexandre said that he was going to implement something but would be quite specific, maybe not of value for others

09:06:56 <rgarcia> Arnaud: Right now there is no one in charge of developing and maintaining a test harness

Arnaud Le Hors: Right now there is no one in charge of developing and maintaining a test harness

09:08:34 <rgarcia> Arnaud: Back to discussing issues

Arnaud Le Hors: Back to discussing issues

<rgarcia> topic: LDP Specification Pending Issues - continues

4. LDP Specification Pending Issues - continues

09:08:52 <rgarcia> subtopic: Modules / profiles / affordances (relates to Issue-32)

4.1. Modules / profiles / affordances (relates to ISSUE-32)

09:09:02 <rgarcia> Arnaud: What do we need to have?

Arnaud Le Hors: What do we need to have?

09:09:22 <ericP> -> https://github.com/ericprud/SWObjects/blob/sparql11/tests/test_LDP.cpp#L550 generic triple store LDP test

Eric Prud'hommeaux: -> https://github.com/ericprud/SWObjects/blob/sparql11/tests/test_LDP.cpp#L550 generic triple store LDP test

09:09:28 <rgarcia> JohnArwe: Why should we do that?

John Arwe: Why should we do that?

09:09:33 <SteveS> ericP I see the test harness for RDB2RDF at http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Testing#Example_Usage_within_W3C

Steve Speicher: ericP I see the test harness for RDB2RDF at http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Testing#Example_Usage_within_W3C

09:10:19 <rgarcia> JohnArwe: … one benefit is to make the specification more consumable: by users, test suite, etc.

John Arwe: … one benefit is to make the specification more consumable: by users, test suite, etc.

09:11:04 <ericP> SteveS, indeed. i wonder what purpose those links fill there. perhaps inspiration?

Eric Prud'hommeaux: SteveS, indeed. i wonder what purpose those links fill there. perhaps inspiration?

09:11:58 <SteveS> ericP yes, just "hey, look at some other stuff"  and maybe someone could factor out something reusable (HTTP commands/response)

Steve Speicher: ericP yes, just "hey, look at some other stuff" and maybe someone could factor out something reusable (HTTP commands/response)

09:12:21 <rgarcia> roger: so, there will be different types of servers; for example with and without pagination

Roger Menday: so, there will be different types of servers; for example with and without pagination

09:12:36 <rgarcia> JohnArwe: and the clients may also want to use certain features or not

John Arwe: and the clients may also want to use certain features or not

09:12:37 <ericP> SteveS, true, that's the concrete vision that i think we'd need.

Eric Prud'hommeaux: SteveS, true, that's the concrete vision that i think we'd need.

09:13:44 <rgarcia> Arnaud: Is the read-only profile covered by OPTIONS?

Arnaud Le Hors: Is the read-only profile covered by OPTIONS?

09:13:53 <Zakim> +Sandro

Zakim IRC Bot: +Sandro

09:13:56 <rgarcia> JohnArwe: Yes

John Arwe: Yes

09:14:14 <rgarcia> Arnaud: what else are we not addressing?

Arnaud Le Hors: what else are we not addressing?

09:14:20 <bblfish> Issue-32?

Henry Story: ISSUE-32?

09:14:20 <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

09:14:20 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/32

Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/32

09:15:08 <bblfish> Issue-80?

Henry Story: ISSUE-80?

09:15:08 <trackbot> ISSUE-80 -- How does a client know which POST requests create new resources -- open

Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-80 -- How does a client know which POST requests create new resources -- open

09:15:08 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/80

Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/80

09:15:49 <JohnArwe> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/ISSUE-32

John Arwe: ISSUE-32">http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/ISSUE-32

09:17:05 <rgarcia> JohnArwe: Does a server support membership triples whose object is not an LDPR?

John Arwe: Does a server support membership triples whose object is not an LDPR?

09:17:25 <rgarcia> bblfish: That is related to how do you know what can be posted to a container

Henry Story: That is related to how do you know what can be posted to a container

09:17:33 <rgarcia> JohnArwe: That is related to ISSUE-80

John Arwe: That is related to ISSUE-80

09:19:32 <rgarcia> JohnArwe: 4.1.3 is more related to create that to other things such as PATCH

John Arwe: 4.1.3 is more related to create that to other things such as PATCH

09:21:08 <rgarcia> JohnArwe: There are not so many affordances without a discovery mechanism

John Arwe: There are not so many affordances without a discovery mechanism

09:23:27 <Zakim> +SteveBattle

Zakim IRC Bot: +SteveBattle

09:23:32 <rgarcia> Ashok: How can it be detected that the data sent to the server is not valid?

Ashok Malhotra: How can it be detected that the data sent to the server is not valid?

09:23:49 <rgarcia> SteveS: According to the datatype

Steve Speicher: According to the datatype

09:24:20 <rgarcia> JohnArwe: 5.4.3 is again about ISSUE-80

John Arwe: 5.4.3 is again about ISSUE-80

09:24:46 <rgarcia> … and 5.6.x is about recursive delete which is already closed

… and 5.6.x is about recursive delete which is already closed

09:25:05 <rgarcia> … so we are covering everything except those things related to ISSUE-80

… so we are covering everything except those things related to ISSUE-80

09:25:14 <rgarcia> subtopic: ISSUE 80

4.2. ISSUE-80

09:25:25 <SteveS> ISSUE-80?

Steve Speicher: ISSUE-80?

09:25:25 <trackbot> ISSUE-80 -- How does a client know which POST requests create new resources -- open

Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-80 -- How does a client know which POST requests create new resources -- open

09:25:25 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/80

Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/80

09:26:01 <rgarcia> JohnArwe: There is already a proposal for solving the issue

John Arwe: There is already a proposal for solving the issue

09:26:45 <bblfish> q+

Henry Story: q+

09:26:52 <rgarcia> … replicating the way it is used in PATCH for POST would be nice from the HTTP perspective

… replicating the way it is used in PATCH for POST would be nice from the HTTP perspective

09:27:10 <rgarcia> … but the semantics of POST are completely open

… but the semantics of POST are completely open

09:27:49 <bblfish> suggest something like a link header that says { <> memberType :someType . } e.g. { <> memberType :Bug

Henry Story: suggest something like a link header that says { <> memberType :someType . } e.g. { <> memberType :Bug

09:27:55 <bblfish> }

Henry Story: }

09:28:32 <rgarcia> … for example, POST is frequently used for querying

… for example, POST is frequently used for querying

09:28:37 <SteveS> bblfish -1, that is overkill for what we are talking about and different issue

Steve Speicher: bblfish -1, that is overkill for what we are talking about and different issue

09:29:36 <rgarcia> … we can leave things open (as everyone else in the web) or include service documents that specify them

… we can leave things open (as everyone else in the web) or include service documents that specify them

09:30:10 <bblfish> q?

Henry Story: q?

09:31:00 <Arnaud> ack bblfish

Arnaud Le Hors: ack bblfish

09:31:14 <rgarcia> bblfish: this doesn't solve the problem deep enough

Henry Story: this doesn't solve the problem deep enough

09:31:23 <SteveS> q+

Steve Speicher: q+

09:32:02 <rgarcia> … in our case everything is turtle and we want to distinguish what can I post to a container

… in our case everything is turtle and we want to distinguish what can I post to a container

09:32:24 <rgarcia> … the mime type is the wrong approach, we should make it declaratively

… the mime type is the wrong approach, we should make it declaratively

09:32:30 <bblfish> suggest something like a link header that says { <> memberType :someType . } e.g. { <> memberType :Bug  }

Henry Story: suggest something like a link header that says { <> memberType :someType . } e.g. { <> memberType :Bug }

09:33:24 <JohnArwe> q+

John Arwe: q+

09:33:26 <Ashok> q+

Ashok Malhotra: q+

09:33:40 <SteveS> thinks that should just be non-member-properties, not link headers…but this is beyond this issue

Steve Speicher: thinks that should just be non-member-properties, not link headers…but this is beyond this issue

09:34:09 <Arnaud> ack sandro

Arnaud Le Hors: ack sandro

09:34:47 <roger> +q

Roger Menday: +q

09:35:14 <Arnaud> ack steves

Arnaud Le Hors: ack steves

09:35:25 <rgarcia> sandro: outside of LDPCs, it would be also for resources to know what can be posted

Sandro Hawke: outside of LDPCs, it would be also for resources to know what can be posted

09:35:52 <rgarcia> SteveS: Part of the data is RDF and other part is not (e.g., binaries)

Steve Speicher: Part of the data is RDF and other part is not (e.g., binaries)

09:36:36 <rgarcia> … we don't need to put that information in the link header, since it is part of the resource

… we don't need to put that information in the link header, since it is part of the resource

09:36:36 <bblfish> SteveS: we need mime types and member types.

Steve Speicher: we need mime types and member types. [ Scribe Assist by Henry Story ]

09:37:11 <rgarcia> … but this leads us maybe beyond LDP 1.0 (constraints, etc.)

… but this leads us maybe beyond LDP 1.0 (constraints, etc.)

09:37:11 <ericP> q+ to say that re-using RDF types is not the right granularity for what a server will accept

Eric Prud'hommeaux: q+ to say that re-using RDF types is not the right granularity for what a server will accept

09:37:46 <Arnaud> ack john

Arnaud Le Hors: ack john

09:38:16 <rgarcia> JohnArwe: bblfish, how does your proposal define the semantics of the operation?

John Arwe: bblfish, how does your proposal define the semantics of the operation?

09:39:00 <rgarcia> .. is that a constraint of a hint?

.. is that a constraint of a hint?

09:39:09 <SteveS> My suggested layering is: what content-types are accepted on POST, does POST support create, then (beyond LDP 1.0 I believe) IF it is RDF content, what Classes are allowed/expected

Steve Speicher: My suggested layering is: what content-types are accepted on POST, does POST support create, then (beyond LDP 1.0 I believe) IF it is RDF content, what Classes are allowed/expected

09:39:28 <rgarcia> bblfish: You may have more that one link

Henry Story: You may have more that one link

09:39:46 <stevebattle4> q+

Steve Battle: q+

09:40:16 <rgarcia> … what John is proposing would be a closed world assumptiom

… what John is proposing would be a closed world assumptiom

09:40:18 <ericP> q-

Eric Prud'hommeaux: q-

09:40:24 <Arnaud> ack ashok

Arnaud Le Hors: ack ashok

09:40:30 <rgarcia> ericP: more than that, a closed protocol assumption

Eric Prud'hommeaux: more than that, a closed protocol assumption

09:40:54 <ericP> q+ to ask what prob we need to solve in 1.0

Eric Prud'hommeaux: q+ to ask what prob we need to solve in 1.0

09:40:59 <rgarcia> Ashok: You specify the type, but what about the schema?

Ashok Malhotra: You specify the type, but what about the schema?

09:41:19 <rgarcia> … you also want to specify the structure

… you also want to specify the structure

09:41:22 <SteveS> yes ericP, see my previous post

Steve Speicher: yes ericP, see my previous post

09:41:52 <Zakim> -Sandro

Zakim IRC Bot: -Sandro

09:42:13 <rgarcia> bblfish: you can add multiple relations

Henry Story: you can add multiple relations

09:42:19 <rgarcia> JohnArwe: but it gets complicated soon

John Arwe: but it gets complicated soon

09:43:58 <rgarcia> Ashok: it is only useful if you can specify the properties of a type

Ashok Malhotra: it is only useful if you can specify the properties of a type

09:44:45 <rgarcia> Arnaud: the point is at what level do we specify those restrictions

Arnaud Le Hors: the point is at what level do we specify those restrictions

09:44:57 <Arnaud> ack roger

Arnaud Le Hors: ack roger

09:45:10 <JohnArwe> Orthogonal background question for Sandro or EricP... in the process of drafting the sorting stuff I noticed that ReSpec's SPARQL-QUERY reference (normative to LDP) points to a document http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-query/ which says at the top "go see 1.1" ... should we be changing that ref now?

John Arwe: Orthogonal background question for Sandro or EricP... in the process of drafting the sorting stuff I noticed that ReSpec's SPARQL-QUERY reference (normative to LDP) points to a document http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-query/ which says at the top "go see 1.1" ... should we be changing that ref now?

09:46:03 <rgarcia> roger: there will be properties on containers beyond the type of what the container contains

Roger Menday: there will be properties on containers beyond the type of what the container contains

09:46:48 <JohnArwe> ...well need to be careful with "contains" word.  to some, means "created by container", to others "in the container's membership"

John Arwe: ...well need to be careful with "contains" word. to some, means "created by container", to others "in the container's membership"

09:47:31 <JohnArwe> I think what Roger did was say that implementations might distinguish between the types of members that exist, and the types of new members that create would accept.

John Arwe: I think what Roger did was say that implementations might distinguish between the types of members that exist, and the types of new members that create would accept.

09:47:37 <rgarcia> bblfish: at the end OWL is about sets and this is our case

Henry Story: at the end OWL is about sets and this is our case

09:48:47 <rgarcia> … my proposal allows adding later more specific things so clients can be later more advanced

… my proposal allows adding later more specific things so clients can be later more advanced

09:49:01 <Arnaud> ack steveb

Arnaud Le Hors: ack steveb

09:49:26 <rgarcia> stevebattle4: I like in principle bblfish's proposal and I don't think we should go beyond that

Steve Battle: I like in principle bblfish's proposal and I don't think we should go beyond that

09:49:37 <JohnArwe> your volume is highly variable steveb

John Arwe: your volume is highly variable steveb

09:49:47 <roger> so 'things inside container' and 'ability to create new ones of those things inside container'.

Roger Menday: so 'things inside container' and 'ability to create new ones of those things inside container'.

09:49:55 <ericP> JohnArwe, ReSpec stuff is handled by a secret band of maintainers who, when prodded, update the table associating short name to a spec name. then we have to do a pull to use that updated ReSpec.

Eric Prud'hommeaux: JohnArwe, ReSpec stuff is handled by a secret band of maintainers who, when prodded, update the table associating short name to a spec name. then we have to do a pull to use that updated ReSpec.

09:49:56 <roger> ... just to summarise a bit John

Roger Menday: ... just to summarise a bit John

09:49:57 <rgarcia> … I don't know a general way that can be useful for validation

… I don't know a general way that can be useful for validation

09:50:39 <rgarcia> Arnaud: In September there will be a workshop on RDF validation

Arnaud Le Hors: In September there will be a workshop on RDF validation

09:50:43 <ericP> -> http://www.w3.org/2012/12/rdf-val/SOTA#shapes example of OSLC's language for describing valid input

Eric Prud'hommeaux: -> http://www.w3.org/2012/12/rdf-val/SOTA#shapes example of OSLC's language for describing valid input

09:50:58 <JohnArwe> rdf validation workshop = http://www.w3.org/blog/SW/2013/05/22/w3cs-rdf-validation-workshop-practical-assurances-for-quality-rdf-data/

John Arwe: rdf validation workshop = http://www.w3.org/blog/SW/2013/05/22/w3cs-rdf-validation-workshop-practical-assurances-for-quality-rdf-data/

09:51:29 <Arnaud> ack eric

Arnaud Le Hors: ack eric

09:51:29 <Zakim> ericP, you wanted to ask what prob we need to solve in 1.0

Zakim IRC Bot: ericP, you wanted to ask what prob we need to solve in 1.0

09:51:56 <rgarcia> ericP: is it worth to talk about validation approaches?

Eric Prud'hommeaux: is it worth to talk about validation approaches?

09:52:10 <rgarcia> … but for 1.0 we should not cover this

… but for 1.0 we should not cover this

09:52:47 <rgarcia> Arnaud: resource shapes is a vocabulary to describe the resources you manage

Arnaud Le Hors: resource shapes is a vocabulary to describe the resources you manage

09:53:14 <mielvds> I also think this causes deep semantic conflicts. This implies OWL reasoning to accept subclasses with every post, which can be a fraction of RDF validation, which would be able to cover all semantics

Miel Vander Sande: I also think this causes deep semantic conflicts. This implies OWL reasoning to accept subclasses with every post, which can be a fraction of RDF validation, which would be able to cover all semantics

09:53:32 <rgarcia> … in an RDF document

… in an RDF document

09:54:32 <rgarcia> Arnaud: Right now we don't have a complete solution for validation, right now we have media types but beyond that we don't have nothing stable

Arnaud Le Hors: Right now we don't have a complete solution for validation, right now we have media types but beyond that we don't have nothing stable

09:55:46 <Zakim> +Sandro

Zakim IRC Bot: +Sandro

09:56:12 <rgarcia> bblfish: at the end anything will be something that defines a set of documents

Henry Story: at the end the solution will be a language that defines a set of documents

09:56:31 <rgarcia> … so we can link to that something

… so we can link to that something

09:56:52 <SteveS> q+

Steve Speicher: q+

09:57:30 <rgarcia> s/anything will be something/the solution will be a language/
09:57:33 <Arnaud> ack steves

Arnaud Le Hors: ack steves

09:58:09 <stevebattle4> Henry, It may only directly constrain the set of RDF models, and only indirectly the set of documents.

Steve Battle: Henry, It may only directly constrain the set of RDF models, and only indirectly the set of documents.

09:58:30 <rgarcia> SteveS: we can specify the media type, but we cannot force now the specification of types

Steve Speicher: we can specify the media type, but we cannot force now the specification of types

09:58:32 <JohnArwe> seems to come down to a small number of questions: (1) do we have consensus to add something about this (at any level) to the existing corpus (if n, done, else) (2) do we have consensus to add something telling clients which media types are accepted for create (regardless of how specified)

John Arwe: seems to come down to a small number of questions: (1) do we have consensus to add something about this (at any level) to the existing corpus (if n, done, else) (2) do we have consensus to add something telling clients which media types are accepted for create (regardless of how specified)

09:59:14 <rgarcia> Arnaud: Can we leave the type declaration for later?

Arnaud Le Hors: Can we leave the type declaration for later?

09:59:35 <rgarcia> … E.g., LDP 1.1

… E.g., LDP 1.1

09:59:39 <ericP> +1 to later

Eric Prud'hommeaux: +1 to later

09:59:41 <JohnArwe> ...(if no, done, else) (3) do we have consensus to add that at the HTTP and/or RDF levels (if no, done, else which and then) (4) do we have consensus to add anything more?

John Arwe: ...(if no, done, else) (3) do we have consensus to add that at the HTTP and/or RDF levels (if no, done, else which and then) (4) do we have consensus to add anything more?

10:00:15 <rgarcia> SteveS: Types and constraints may conflic

Steve Speicher: Types and constraints may conflict

10:00:22 <rgarcia> s/conflic/conflict/
10:00:48 <JohnArwe> q?

John Arwe: q?

10:00:56 <rgarcia> bblfish: But we would be promoting bad behaviour

Henry Story: But we would be promoting bad behaviour

10:01:01 <JohnArwe> q+

John Arwe: q+

10:01:16 <rgarcia> Arnaud: But that's the reason we have the Best Practices document

Arnaud Le Hors: But that's the reason we have the Best Practices document

10:01:35 <krp> +1 to discouraging misuse of media type in the best practice and guidelines

Kevin Page: +1 to discouraging misuse of media type in the best practice and guidelines

10:02:39 <Arnaud> ack john

Arnaud Le Hors: ack john

10:03:18 <ericP> q+ to say that no tool is going to be able to do anything with an english definition of the type

Eric Prud'hommeaux: q+ to say that no tool is going to be able to do anything with an english definition of the type

10:03:29 <SteveS> I don't see how this encourages abuse of media type, people can do POST today and create media types….how does this encourage it?

Steve Speicher: I don't see how this encourages abuse of media type, people can do POST today and create media types….how does this encourage it?

10:03:43 <rgarcia> JohnArwe: Reads aloud the questions written above

John Arwe: Reads aloud the questions written above

10:03:50 <bblfish> q+

Henry Story: q+

10:05:25 <ericP> q-

Eric Prud'hommeaux: q-

10:06:34 <rgarcia> sandro: are the use cases for ISSUE-80 compelling?

Sandro Hawke: are the use cases for ISSUE-80 compelling?

10:07:09 <stevebattle4> There is no current use-case in UC&R that covers this.

Steve Battle: There is no current use-case in UC&R that covers this.

10:07:10 <rgarcia> bblfish: it helps the test suite

Henry Story: it helps the test suite

10:07:56 <rgarcia> Arnaud: is someone against dealing with the media type question?

Arnaud Le Hors: is someone against dealing with the media type question?

10:08:31 <Arnaud> ack bblfish

Arnaud Le Hors: ack bblfish

10:08:51 <rgarcia> bblfish: beyond media types we would like to define sets of documents

Henry Story: beyond media types we would like to define sets of documents

10:09:24 <rgarcia> Arnaud: we seem to have a consensus on media types but not on the RDF typing

Arnaud Le Hors: we seem to have a consensus on media types but not on the RDF typing

10:11:28 <JohnArwe> Revised Proposal: define a new HTTP header Accept-Post whose value is a media type list to communicate which media types the server accepts when creating resources via HTTP POST

John Arwe: Revised Proposal: define a new HTTP header Accept-Post whose value is a media type list to communicate which media types the server accepts when creating resources via HTTP POST

10:12:34 <rgarcia> +1

+1

10:12:35 <SteveS> +1

Steve Speicher: +1

10:12:38 <JohnArwe> ...the change vs -80 is removal of -Create suffix

John Arwe: ...the change vs -80 is removal of -Create suffix

10:12:46 <JohnArwe> +1

John Arwe: +1

10:12:46 <cody> +1

Cody Burleson: +1

10:12:48 <nmihindu> +1

Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: +1

10:12:51 <stevebattle4> 0 - I'd prefer to define a new RDF property accep-post whose value is....

Steve Battle: 0 - I'd prefer to define a new RDF property accept-post whose value is....

10:12:59 <krp> +1

Kevin Page: +1

10:13:00 <Ashok> +1

Ashok Malhotra: +1

10:13:04 <ericP> +1 (though i'm concearned about the loss of -Create)

Eric Prud'hommeaux: +1 (though i'm concearned about the loss of -Create)

10:13:10 <stevebattle4> s/accep-post/accept-post/
10:13:14 <bblfish> -1

Henry Story: -1

10:13:18 <mesteban_> +0

Miguel Esteban Gutiérrez: +0

10:13:31 <nmihindu> +q

Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: +q

10:14:00 <roger> 0

Roger Menday: 0

10:14:45 <Arnaud> ack nmihindu

Arnaud Le Hors: ack nmihindu

10:16:02 <rgarcia> nmihindu: going behind this proposal may have risk

Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: going beyond this proposal may have risk

10:19:11 <krp> q+

Kevin Page: q+

10:19:25 <rgarcia> s/behind/beyond/
10:19:46 <Arnaud> ack krp

Arnaud Le Hors: ack krp

10:20:14 <ericP> q+ to ask whether we can drop this requirement and drop the header

Eric Prud'hommeaux: q+ to ask whether we can drop this requirement and drop the header

10:20:47 <Arnaud> ack eric

Arnaud Le Hors: ack eric

10:20:47 <Zakim> ericP, you wanted to ask whether we can drop this requirement and drop the header

Zakim IRC Bot: ericP, you wanted to ask whether we can drop this requirement and drop the header

10:21:21 <rgarcia> krp: There are different levels of constraints and bblfish proposal could also be implemented with the media type approach

Kevin Page: There are different levels of constraints and bblfish proposal could also be implemented with the media type approach

10:21:35 <stevebattle4> +1 to drop this altogether

Steve Battle: +1 to drop this altogether

10:22:22 <Ashok> -1 to dropping this

Ashok Malhotra: -1 to dropping this

10:23:02 <ericP> Ashok, what can we do with this header?

Eric Prud'hommeaux: Ashok, what can we do with this header?

10:23:56 <Ashok> Eric, I worry that the server will get fiilled up with bad data unless we constrain what you can add where

Ashok Malhotra: Eric, I worry that the server will get fiilled up with bad data unless we constrain what you can add where

10:24:14 <Arnaud> ack sandro

Arnaud Le Hors: ack sandro

10:24:20 <roger> +q

Roger Menday: +q

10:24:45 <rgarcia> sandro: How are we going to define this header?

Sandro Hawke: How are we going to define this header?

10:24:55 <rgarcia> JohnArwe: We can just put it in our specification

John Arwe: We can just put it in our specification

10:25:06 <ericP> Ashok, we still have that issue with the header. all the header does is say that some endpoint accepts post

Eric Prud'hommeaux: Ashok, we still have that issue with the header. all the header does is say that some endpoint accepts post

10:25:27 <rgarcia> … and requires approval from a domain expert

… and requires approval from a domain expert

10:25:31 <roger> homework for Henry then is there an ontology for the mime types ?

Roger Menday: homework for Henry then is there an ontology for the mime types ?

10:25:50 <Ashok> Eric, I want it to say what type it accepts

Ashok Malhotra: Eric, I want it to say what type it accepts

10:25:50 <stevebattle4> q+

Steve Battle: q+

10:25:54 <bblfish> also if there are problems with documents types as thought of this way.

Henry Story: also if there are problems with documents types as thought of this way.

10:26:04 <nmihindu> ericP, I think it is more like the reverse of Accept header in a GET for client. But this time server letting the clients know what the server will accept.

Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: ericP, I think it is more like the reverse of Accept header in a GET for client. But this time server letting the clients know what the server will accept.

10:26:43 <rgarcia> sandro: This is unrelated to LDP

Sandro Hawke: This is unrelated to LDP

10:26:59 <stevebattle4> q-

Steve Battle: q-

10:27:12 <rgarcia> … it is an important thing to have and could be addressed elsewhere

… it is an important thing to have and could be addressed elsewhere

10:27:53 <JohnArwe> do we need a straw poll on whether or not to STOP AT media type?  If anyone is going to -1 that, then we know that no matter which way we attempt to go we're looking at a formal objection, so at that point we might as well look for "near consensus"

John Arwe: do we need a straw poll on whether or not to STOP AT media type? If anyone is going to -1 that, then we know that no matter which way we attempt to go we're looking at a formal objection, so at that point we might as well look for "near consensus"

10:28:03 <Arnaud> ack roger

Arnaud Le Hors: ack roger

10:28:05 <JohnArwe> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5988#section-6.2.1 is the process for adding new link relations

John Arwe: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5988#section-6.2.1 is the process for adding new link relations

10:28:21 <stevebattle4> q+

Steve Battle: q+

10:28:38 <Ashok> q+

Ashok Malhotra: q+

10:28:45 <rgarcia> Ashok: it seems that we are just postponing difficult topics

Ashok Malhotra: it seems that we are just postponing difficult topics

10:29:37 <ericP> q+ to say that losing this header isn't a great loss; that we aren't giving up on any use cases.

Eric Prud'hommeaux: q+ to say that losing this header isn't a great loss; that we aren't giving up on any use cases.

10:29:46 <Arnaud> ack steveb

Arnaud Le Hors: ack steveb

10:30:28 <roger> +q

Roger Menday: +q

10:30:34 <rgarcia> stevebattle: Adding a new header variable should be the last resort

Steve Battle: Adding a new header variable should be the last resort

10:30:45 <stevebattle4> Yes - that's what I said

Steve Battle: Yes - that's what I said

10:30:57 <stevebattle4> Sorry for the sound qaulity

Steve Battle: Sorry for the sound quality

10:31:06 <stevebattle4> s/qaulity/quality/
10:31:16 <Arnaud> ack ashok

Arnaud Le Hors: ack ashok

10:32:05 <Arnaud> ack eric

Arnaud Le Hors: ack eric

10:32:05 <Zakim> ericP, you wanted to say that losing this header isn't a great loss; that we aren't giving up on any use cases.

Zakim IRC Bot: ericP, you wanted to say that losing this header isn't a great loss; that we aren't giving up on any use cases.

10:32:54 <rgarcia> ericP: If we do not add the header we would be ruling some use cases

Eric Prud'hommeaux: If we do not add the header we would not be ruling some use cases

10:32:55 <Arnaud> ack roger

Arnaud Le Hors: ack roger

10:33:09 <ericP> s/would be/would not be/
10:33:29 <sandro> ericP, yes we are.     We already had consensus this was a requirement, 20 minutes ago -- and if we hadn't, I'd have given some use cases.

Sandro Hawke: ericP, yes we are. We already had consensus this was a requirement, 20 minutes ago -- and if we hadn't, I'd have given some use cases.

10:34:57 <rgarcia> roger: we need a strategy as a group regarding all these things

Roger Menday: we need a strategy as a group regarding all these things

10:35:18 <rgarcia> … and avoid ad-hoc solutions every time we face this kind of decisions

… and avoid ad-hoc solutions every time we face this kind of decisions

10:36:45 <sandro> q+

Sandro Hawke: q+

10:37:46 <rgarcia> q+

q+

10:37:56 <Arnaud> ack sandro

Arnaud Le Hors: ack sandro

10:37:58 <JohnArwe> Roger: how do things function in your view when the request-uri=R and all the triples in the response (i.e. the state of the resource) have a subject URI of S ?

Roger Menday: how do things function in your view when the request-uri=R and all the triples in the response (i.e. the state of the resource) have a subject URI of S ? [ Scribe Assist by John Arwe ]

10:38:18 <mielvds> Document from 2002 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2002/01-uriMediaType-9

Miel Vander Sande: Document from 2002 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2002/01-uriMediaType-9

10:38:33 <rgarcia> sandro: Tim thought of URLs for media types but at the end he concluded that shouldn't be done

Sandro Hawke: Tim thought of URLs for media types but at the end he concluded that shouldn't be done

10:39:02 <Arnaud> ack rgarcia

Arnaud Le Hors: ack rgarcia

10:39:44 <JohnArwe> sandro: IETF showed no interest in mapping media types to URIs, not W3C's place to do so.

Sandro Hawke: IETF showed no interest in mapping media types to URIs, not W3C's place to do so. [ Scribe Assist by John Arwe ]

10:41:56 <ericP> sandro, i agreed to the requirement 'cause i wanted to make progress, but i'd like to see some use case that gets enabled by accept-post

Eric Prud'hommeaux: sandro, i agreed to the requirement 'cause i wanted to make progress, but i'd like to see some use case that gets enabled by accept-post

10:42:47 <bblfish> <> memberType [ mime "image/*" ] .

Henry Story: <> memberType [ mime "image/*" ] .

10:44:28 <bblfish> <> memberClass [ mime "image/*" ] .

Henry Story: <> memberClass [ mime "image/*" ] .

10:45:48 <mielvds> They are NOT mutual exclusive btw

Miel Vander Sande: They are NOT mutual exclusive btw

10:46:13 <roger> if you want two words here, one is "accepts" and the other one might be "member"

Roger Menday: if you want two words here, one is "accepts" and the other one might be "member"

10:46:13 <sandro> I think it's a terrible design, to conflate media types and classes of things in the application domain.

Sandro Hawke: I think it's a terrible design, to conflate media types and classes of things in the application domain.

10:46:22 <ericP> q+ to say that we keep using the example of RDF types, e.g. Bugs, when it may be more compelling to use some sort of image type to motivate accept-post:

Eric Prud'hommeaux: q+ to say that we keep using the example of RDF types, e.g. Bugs, when it may be more compelling to use some sort of image type to motivate accept-post:

10:46:25 <sandro> q+

Sandro Hawke: q+

10:46:38 <Arnaud> ack eric

Arnaud Le Hors: ack eric

10:46:38 <Zakim> ericP, you wanted to say that we keep using the example of RDF types, e.g. Bugs, when it may be more compelling to use some sort of image type to motivate accept-post:

Zakim IRC Bot: ericP, you wanted to say that we keep using the example of RDF types, e.g. Bugs, when it may be more compelling to use some sort of image type to motivate accept-post:

10:46:51 <sandro> q+ to say we need to this to move away from Turtle someday.

Sandro Hawke: q+ to say we need to this to move away from Turtle someday.

10:47:26 <bblfish> <> memberClass [ mime "text/*"; owl:IntersectionOf BugReportDocs ] .

Henry Story: <> memberClass [ mime "text/*"; owl:IntersectionOf BugReportDocs ] .

10:47:31 <Arnaud> ack sandro

Arnaud Le Hors: ack sandro

10:47:31 <Zakim> sandro, you wanted to say we need to this to move away from Turtle someday.

Zakim IRC Bot: sandro, you wanted to say we need to this to move away from Turtle someday.

10:47:40 <JohnArwe> FWIW *all* of our current in-the-field implementations where we'd look to use this are RDF/XML only, they will begin to support Turtle only with LDP

John Arwe: FWIW *all* of our current in-the-field implementations where we'd look to use this are RDF/XML only, they will begin to support Turtle only with LDP

10:47:55 <JohnArwe> ...some are already jumping on JSON-LD too

John Arwe: ...some are already jumping on JSON-LD too

10:48:02 <rgarcia> sandro: everyone will be using JSON-LD in a year from now

Sandro Hawke: everyone might be using JSON-LD in a year from now

10:48:03 <mielvds> so accept turtle (or whatever rdf format), which allows you to validate the semantics later. But they need to be in sync

Miel Vander Sande: so accept turtle (or whatever rdf format), which allows you to validate the semantics later. But they need to be in sync

10:48:07 <bblfish> <> memberClass [ mime "appliction/json+ld*"; owl:IntersectionOf BugReportDocs ] .

Henry Story: <> memberClass [ mime "appliction/json+ld*"; owl:IntersectionOf BugReportDocs ] .

10:49:03 <sandro> s/will be/might be/
10:49:54 <rgarcia> Arnaud: why mixing transport and application layers?

Arnaud Le Hors: why mixing transport and application layers?

10:51:29 <JohnArwe> So here's a OOB idea: the proposed header (accept-post) does exactly as my previous proposal; henry's proposal adds the "create" semantic that "REST people" feel intrudes overly much into HTTP space, so the two together actually solve the full issue.

John Arwe: So here's a OOB idea: the proposed header (accept-post) does exactly as my previous proposal; henry's proposal adds the "create" semantic that "REST people" feel intrudes overly much into HTTP space, so the two together actually solve the full issue.

10:51:35 <sandro> Also, every web app has a use for this information --- so put it where they can use it.

Sandro Hawke: Also, every web app has a use for this information --- so put it where they can use it.

10:52:04 <JohnArwe> ...the set of POST payloads that result in the create semantic is the intersection of the two media type specs.

John Arwe: ...the set of POST payloads that result in the create semantic is the intersection of the two media type specs.

10:53:06 <rgarcia> Arnaud: we can vote again after lunch

Arnaud Le Hors: we can vote again after lunch

10:53:09 <stevebattle4> I'd still like to drop the use of a http header from the proposal.

Steve Battle: I'd still like to drop the use of a http header from the proposal.

10:53:33 <rgarcia> JohnArwe: explains the idea written above

John Arwe: explains the idea written above

10:54:17 <sandro> "worst of both worlds"

Sandro Hawke: "worst of both worlds"

10:54:53 <sandro> sandro: doesn't POST to LDC always mean CREATE?

Sandro Hawke: doesn't POST to LDC always mean CREATE? [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

10:55:05 <sandro> JohnArwe: No, not necessarily

John Arwe: No, not necessarily [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

10:55:07 <JohnArwe> it's a MAY not a MUST

John Arwe: it's a MAY not a MUST

10:55:18 <rgarcia> Arnaud: break for lunch

Arnaud Le Hors: break for lunch

10:55:23 <sandro> weird.

Sandro Hawke: weird.

10:55:23 <sandro> very weird.

Sandro Hawke: very weird.

10:55:24 <ericP> POST /pics/puppies HTTP/1.1\nContent-type: application/soap+xml ..  not likely to work

Eric Prud'hommeaux: POST /pics/puppies HTTP/1.1\nContent-type: application/soap+xml .. not likely to work

10:55:44 <sandro> well, not-working is different from working-differently.

Sandro Hawke: well, not-working is different from working-differently.

10:56:11 <ericP> "working-differently" is usually a bug, no?

Eric Prud'hommeaux: "working-differently" is usually a bug, no?

10:56:12 <Zakim> -SteveBattle

Zakim IRC Bot: -SteveBattle

10:57:09 <JohnArwe> sandro: 5.4 ... 5.4.4 does require post = create for rdf media types.

Sandro Hawke: 5.4 ... 5.4.4 does require post = create for rdf media types. [ Scribe Assist by John Arwe ]

10:59:32 <Zakim> -ericP

Zakim IRC Bot: -ericP

12:04:37 <Zakim> +SteveBattle

(No events recorded for 65 minutes)

Zakim IRC Bot: +SteveBattle

12:06:22 <Arnaud> scribe: roger

(Scribe set to Roger Menday)

12:06:55 <JohnArwe> eric, sandro, we're back

John Arwe: eric, sandro, we're back

12:07:12 <stevebattle4> Are we still going to the http headers?

Steve Battle: Are we still going for the http headers?

12:07:19 <stevebattle4> s/to/for/
12:07:23 <JohnArwe> @steveb, that is the proposal

John Arwe: @steveb, that is the proposal

12:07:43 <bblfish> +1 to proposal for Accept-Post

Henry Story: +1 to proposal for Accept-Post

12:07:56 <nmihindu> Revised Proposal: define a new HTTP header Accept-Post whose value is a media type list to communicate which media types the server accepts when creating resources via HTTP POST

Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: Revised Proposal: define a new HTTP header Accept-Post whose value is a media type list to communicate which media types the server accepts when creating resources via HTTP POST

12:08:11 <stevebattle4> Sounded to me like Sandro was arguing against headers earlier?

Steve Battle: Sounded to me like Sandro was arguing against headers earlier?

12:08:21 <sandro> No, I like the headers

Sandro Hawke: No, I like the headers

12:08:34 <stevebattle4> Oh - OK

Steve Battle: Oh - OK

12:08:40 <Arnaud> this was the proposal: define a new HTTP header Accept-Post whose value is a media type list to communicate which media types the server accepts when creating resources via HTTP POST

Arnaud Le Hors: this was the proposal: define a new HTTP header Accept-Post whose value is a media type list to communicate which media types the server accepts when creating resources via HTTP POST

12:08:48 <JohnArwe> miel: w/o create it does not solve the issue

Miel Vander Sande: w/o create it does not solve the issue [ Scribe Assist by John Arwe ]

12:08:50 <Zakim> +Sandro

Zakim IRC Bot: +Sandro

12:09:01 <Zakim> +[GVoice]

Zakim IRC Bot: +[GVoice]

12:09:39 <stevebattle4> 0 - I still think new header variables should be a last resort.

Steve Battle: 0 - I still think new header variables should be a last resort.

12:09:46 <SteveS> +1 to this proposal, including media types and create semantics

Steve Speicher: +1 to this proposal, including media types and create semantics

12:10:24 <ericP> stevebattle4, i was arguing to drop the header 'cause i thought we weren't making progress on it. but i'm now more optimistic

Eric Prud'hommeaux: stevebattle4, i was arguing to drop the header 'cause i thought we weren't making progress on it. but i'm now more optimistic

12:13:14 <SteveS> Accept-Post SHOULD return list of media-types supported on an OPTIONS request

Steve Speicher: Accept-Post SHOULD return list of media-types supported on an OPTIONS request

12:14:04 <roger> Arnaud is concerned that there is mismatch between header name and its semantic.

Arnaud is concerned that there is mismatch between header name and its semantic.

12:14:59 <JohnArwe> phone folks: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/hg/ldp.html = editor's draft, 5.4.1 and the next few cover the post-create space

John Arwe: phone folks: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/hg/ldp.html = editor's draft, 5.4.1 and the next few cover the post-create space

12:15:33 <Arnaud> Resolved: Close Issue-80 by defining a new HTTP header Accept-Post whose value is a media type list to communicate which media types the server accepts when creating resources via HTTP POST

RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-80 by defining a new HTTP header Accept-Post whose value is a media type list to communicate which media types the server accepts when creating resources via HTTP POST

12:16:09 <JohnArwe> ...and ericp/sandro, that draft also has the collation stuff in 5.3.7-5.3.10 (.10 specially on collation) if you want to review that

John Arwe: ...and ericp/sandro, that draft also has the collation stuff in 5.3.7-5.3.10 (.10 specially on collation) if you want to review that

<roger> subtopic: Issue-32

4.3. ISSUE-32

12:16:15 <roger> Arnaud: can we now close issue 32 as a consequence ?

Arnaud Le Hors: can we now close ISSUE-32 as a consequence ?

12:17:05 <roger> TODO, need to review the spec and check for potential re-introduced inconsistencies

TODO, need to review the spec and check for potential re-introduced inconsistencies

12:17:26 <roger> Raul: do we need a new header for PUT now ?

Raúl García Castro: do we need a new header for PUT now ?

12:17:54 <ericP> Accept-P.{2,3}T

Eric Prud'hommeaux: Accept-P.{2,3}T

12:18:01 <JohnArwe> phone folks: there was discussion over lunch that resulted in the question of "do we need an Accept-PUT" header ala Accept-Post for the "put to create" cases

John Arwe: phone folks: there was discussion over lunch that resulted in the question of "do we need an Accept-PUT" header ala Accept-Post for the "put to create" cases

12:20:00 <roger> EricP: if you GET something, can we assume that the same media type can be PUTted back ?

Eric Prud'hommeaux: if you GET something, can we assume that the same media type can be PUTted back ?

12:20:29 <SteveS> q+

Steve Speicher: q+

12:20:47 <Arnaud> ack steves

Arnaud Le Hors: ack steves

12:22:26 <Yves> if Accept-Post/Put is generated server side, then the name is not the irght one, Accept-* is usually generated by the client

Yves Lafon: if Accept-Post/Put is generated server side, then the name is not the irght one, Accept-* is usually generated by the client

12:23:19 <bblfish> (note: You could not do an Accept-PUT on a non existent resource. )

Henry Story: (note: You could not do an Accept-PUT on a non existent resource. )

12:23:44 <roger> SteveS: the PATCH verb uses the same format, i.e. Accept-Patch

Steve Speicher: the PATCH verb uses the same format, i.e. Accept-Patch

12:23:44 <SteveS> Yves see http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5789#section-3.1 so we are following their lead

Steve Speicher: Yves see http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5789#section-3.1 so we are following their lead

12:26:36 <roger> We stick with Accept_Post just because the precedent is already set by Accept-Patch

We stick with Accept_Post just because the precedent is already set by Accept-Patch

12:26:37 <JohnArwe> FWIW ericp, I started from the same place; although the first conv I had with someone was "I allow GET html for RDF resources but the POST must be an RDF media type", I did not find that especially convincing.  In most cases I deal with, the product uses a framework like Jena to (de)serialize payloads, so the only net cost is testing.

John Arwe: FWIW ericp, I started from the same place; although the first conv I had with someone was "I allow GET html for RDF resources but the POST must be an RDF media type", I did not find that especially convincing. In most cases I deal with, the product uses a framework like Jena to (de)serialize payloads, so the only net cost is testing.

12:27:05 <roger> Resolved: We won't do anything with Accept-Put for now

RESOLVED: We won't do anything with Accept-Put for now

12:27:26 <Arnaud> Proposal: close issue-32, addressed by closing related issues (80, etc.)

PROPOSED: close ISSUE-32, addressed by closing related issues (80, etc.)

12:27:31 <stevebattle4> +1

Steve Battle: +1

12:27:33 <bblfish> issue-32?

Henry Story: ISSUE-32?

12:27:33 <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

12:27:33 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/32

Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/32

12:27:33 <ericP> JohnArwe, yeah, i'm not leaning towards one version or the other; i just wanted to record that we were willing to use whatever name was acceptable to the IETF HTTP WG

Eric Prud'hommeaux: JohnArwe, yeah, i'm not leaning towards one version or the other; i just wanted to record that we were willing to use whatever name was acceptable to the IETF HTTP WG

12:27:35 <SteveS> +1

Steve Speicher: +1

12:27:40 <ericP> +1

Eric Prud'hommeaux: +1

12:27:41 <roger> +1

+1

12:27:43 <krp> +1

Kevin Page: +1

12:27:47 <cody> +1

Cody Burleson: +1

12:27:47 <bblfish> +!

Henry Story: +!

12:27:50 <bblfish> +1

Henry Story: +1

12:27:51 <mesteban_> +1

Miguel Esteban Gutiérrez: +1

12:27:58 <sandro> +1

Sandro Hawke: +1

12:28:24 <Arnaud> Resolved: Close issue-32, addressed by closing related issues (80, etc.)

RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-32, addressed by closing related issues (80, etc.)

12:28:28 <rgarcia> +1

Raúl García Castro: +1

12:29:03 <bblfish> Issue-17?

Henry Story: ISSUE-17?

12:29:03 <trackbot> ISSUE-17 -- changesets as a recommended PATCH format -- pending review

Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-17 -- changesets as a recommended PATCH format -- pending review

12:29:03 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/17

Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/17

12:29:03 <sandro> issue-17?

Sandro Hawke: ISSUE-17?

12:29:03 <trackbot> ISSUE-17 -- changesets as a recommended PATCH format -- pending review

Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-17 -- changesets as a recommended PATCH format -- pending review

12:29:04 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/17

Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/17

12:29:22 <roger> subTopic: Issue-17

4.4. ISSUE-17

12:29:43 <Ashok> q+

Ashok Malhotra: q+

12:29:48 <sandro> q+

Sandro Hawke: q+

12:30:08 <Arnaud> ack ashok

Arnaud Le Hors: ack ashok

12:30:25 <stevebattle4> q+

Steve Battle: q+

12:31:34 <bblfish> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/TurtlePatch

Henry Story: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/TurtlePatch

12:31:42 <SteveS> q+

Steve Speicher: q+

12:31:45 <Arnaud> ack sandro

Arnaud Le Hors: ack sandro

12:32:04 <sandro> http://www.w3.org/People/Sandro/datapatch

Sandro Hawke: http://www.w3.org/People/Sandro/datapatch

12:33:01 <SteveS> I started down the road of defining a patch format in RDF and have limited experience with it http://open-services.net/wiki/core/OSLC-Core-Partial-Update/

Steve Speicher: I started down the road of defining a patch format in RDF and have limited experience with it http://open-services.net/wiki/core/OSLC-Core-Partial-Update/

12:33:28 <roger> Sandro: blank nodes cause trouble, and none of the mainstream PATCH formats have a good answer

Sandro Hawke: blank nodes cause trouble, and none of the mainstream PATCH formats have a good answer

12:33:36 <ericP> q+ to propose that we use Sandro's draft but say it doesn't cover graphs with bnodes now

Eric Prud'hommeaux: q+ to propose that we use Sandro's draft but say it doesn't cover graphs with bnodes now

12:33:43 <Arnaud> ack steveb

Arnaud Le Hors: ack steveb

12:34:12 <bblfish> It's breaking up

Henry Story: It's breaking up

12:34:22 <bblfish> what did he say?

Henry Story: what did he say?

12:34:24 <stevebattle4> We could rule that blank nodes are off the table.

Steve Battle: We could rule that blank nodes are off the table.

12:34:41 <stevebattle4> We need a recommended format for testing

Steve Battle: We need a recommended format for testing

12:34:44 <bblfish> q+

Henry Story: q+

12:34:55 <Arnaud> ack steves

Arnaud Le Hors: ack steves

12:34:59 <stevebattle4> A pragmatic alternative is SPARQL update

Steve Battle: A pragmatic alternative is SPARQL update

12:35:34 <sandro> Yes, for testing, certainly, stevebattle4

Sandro Hawke: Yes, for testing, certainly, stevebattle4

12:35:41 <roger> how to reference Talis changeset ?

how to reference Talis changeset ?

12:35:55 <stevebattle4> No IP issues

Steve Battle: No IP issues

12:36:04 <stevebattle4> I asked Tom Heath

Steve Battle: I asked Tom Heath

12:36:49 <bblfish> q?

Henry Story: q?

12:37:11 <Ashok> Andy, are you there?

Ashok Malhotra: Andy, are you there?

12:37:27 <roger> SteveS: should not rush it, better to wait and mature a PATCH format (or use something else)

Steve Speicher: should not rush it, better to wait and mature a PATCH format (or use something else)

12:37:42 <stevebattle4> So what about SPARQL update?

Steve Battle: So what about SPARQL update?

12:37:54 <Arnaud> ack eric

Arnaud Le Hors: ack eric

12:37:54 <Zakim> ericP, you wanted to propose that we use Sandro's draft but say it doesn't cover graphs with bnodes now

Zakim IRC Bot: ericP, you wanted to propose that we use Sandro's draft but say it doesn't cover graphs with bnodes now

12:38:46 <SteveS> I'm ok with not supporting bnodes in first rev of patch format/model

Steve Speicher: I'm ok with not supporting bnodes in first rev of patch format/model

12:39:34 <roger> +q

+q

12:39:35 <Arnaud> ack bblfish

Arnaud Le Hors: ack bblfish

12:39:38 <bblfish> http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-update/#delete

Henry Story: http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-update/#delete

12:40:13 <roger> EricP: do we have enough use-cases for which blank nodes are not necessary ?

Eric Prud'hommeaux: do we have enough use-cases for which blank nodes are not necessary ?

12:41:41 <SteveS> q+

Steve Speicher: q+

12:42:14 <Arnaud> ack roger

Arnaud Le Hors: ack roger

12:42:42 <bblfish> my argument was why not SPARQL1.1 ? e.g.: http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-update/#delete

Henry Story: my argument was why not SPARQL1.1 ? e.g.: http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-update/#delete

12:43:10 <bblfish> the answer was it is NP Complete. My answer why not have the server just spend a certain time on the problem then return an answer of failure.

Henry Story: the answer was it is NP Complete. My answer why not have the server just spend a certain time on the problem then return an answer of failure.

12:43:13 <Arnaud> ack steves

Arnaud Le Hors: ack steves

12:44:23 <roger> Roger: Mostly I want to PATCH the membershipTriples inside a LDPC. In which case blank nodes are not an issue here.

Roger Menday: Mostly I want to PATCH the membershipTriples inside a LDPC. In which case blank nodes are not an issue here.

12:45:12 <roger> SteveS has some blank node requirements ...

SteveS has some blank node requirements ...

12:45:15 <bblfish> SteveS is speaking about  http://open-services.net/wiki/core/OSLC-Core-Partial-Update/

Henry Story: SteveS is speaking about http://open-services.net/wiki/core/OSLC-Core-Partial-Update/

12:46:43 <Ashok> q+

Ashok Malhotra: q+

12:47:11 <Arnaud> ack ashok

Arnaud Le Hors: ack ashok

12:48:29 <Arnaud> PROPOSAL: Close Issue-17 and put it on the wish list.

PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-17 and put it on the wish list.

12:49:04 <mesteban_> +1

Miguel Esteban Gutiérrez: +1

12:49:09 <sandro> +1 happy to work on this outside of the LDP Rec Track

Sandro Hawke: +1 happy to work on this outside of the LDP Rec Track

12:49:30 <roger> +1

+1

12:49:56 <Ashok> +1

Ashok Malhotra: +1

12:50:00 <SteveS> +1

Steve Speicher: +1

12:50:02 <roger> Ashok, put a note into the deployment guide, list options, etc ...

Ashok, put a note into the deployment guide, list options, etc ...

12:50:06 <roger> +1

+1

12:50:26 <ericP> +1

Eric Prud'hommeaux: +1

12:50:28 <stevebattle4> +1

Steve Battle: +1

12:50:49 <Arnaud> Resolved: Close Issue-17 and put it on the wish list.

RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-17 and put it on the wish list.

12:53:03 <roger> I added a placeholder on the wishlist ...

I added a placeholder on the wishlist ...

12:54:05 <bblfish> http://piratepad.net/ge4VKecQWa

Henry Story: http://piratepad.net/ge4VKecQWa

12:54:16 <roger> subTopic: Issue 79

4.5. ISSUE-79

12:54:23 <bblfish> Issue-79?

Henry Story: ISSUE-79?

12:54:23 <trackbot> ISSUE-79 -- ldp:contains -- open

Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-79 -- ldp:contains -- open

12:54:23 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/79

Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/79

12:56:17 <nmihindu> q+

Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: q+

12:58:21 <mielvds> This not issue 79 btw, we can make the discussion clearer by first resolving it (i.e. changing rdfs:member by ldp:contains)

Miel Vander Sande: This not ISSUE-79 btw, we can make the discussion clearer by first resolving it (i.e. changing rdfs:member by ldp:contains)

13:01:27 <nmihindu> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2013May/0206.html

Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2013May/0206.html

13:01:30 <Arnaud> ack nmihindu

Arnaud Le Hors: ack nmihindu

13:01:56 <sandro> q+

Sandro Hawke: q+

13:02:22 <sandro> Arnaud, which issue are we supposed to be talking about right now?

Sandro Hawke: Arnaud, which issue are we supposed to be talking about right now?

13:03:27 <sandro> q-

Sandro Hawke: q-

13:04:51 <bblfish> q+

Henry Story: q+

13:06:32 <Arnaud> ack bblfish

Arnaud Le Hors: ack bblfish

13:07:48 <roger> Arnaud: without a default membershipPredicate, there is a implication for issue-79.

Arnaud Le Hors: without a default membershipPredicate, there is a implication for ISSUE-79.

13:14:07 <ericP> q+ to ask what use cases ldp:contains enables and whether we're compelled by them

(No events recorded for 6 minutes)

Eric Prud'hommeaux: q+ to ask what use cases ldp:contains enables and whether we're compelled by them

13:14:52 <roger> John: .. to Henry - what does the 'contains' relation really imply ? if it created with POST, or linked with PATCH ... in both cases, does this mean 'contains' ?

John Arwe: .. to Henry - what does the 'contains' relation really imply ? if it created with POST, or linked with PATCH ... in both cases, does this mean 'contains' ?

13:16:49 <stevebattle4> (At risk of opening wormcans) ldp:contains _could_ mean LDP Resources that are actually contained regardless of how the containment came about.

Steve Battle: (At risk of opening wormcans) ldp:contains _could_ mean LDP Resources that are actually contained regardless of how the containment came about.

13:17:32 <JohnArwe> Discussion of proposal formulation... what is current, what is still ambiguous, what overlaps with other issues

John Arwe: Discussion of proposal formulation... what is current, what is still ambiguous, what overlaps with other issues

13:18:05 <JohnArwe> Henry: ok will remove contains and all the membership issues, of very limited use IMO.

Henry Story: ok will remove contains and all the membership issues, of very limited use IMO. [ Scribe Assist by John Arwe ]

13:18:58 <ericP> q-

Eric Prud'hommeaux: q-

13:18:58 <Arnaud> ack eric

Arnaud Le Hors: ack eric

13:19:15 <cody> q?

Cody Burleson: q?

13:19:41 <JohnArwe> sandro: cannot ever be perfect.  can only make a reasonable effort to get a decent solution.

Sandro Hawke: cannot ever be perfect. can only make a reasonable effort to get a decent solution. [ Scribe Assist by John Arwe ]

13:21:00 <JohnArwe> animated discussion of "good enough" vs "perfect" trade-offs

John Arwe: animated discussion of "good enough" vs "perfect" trade-offs

13:21:33 <stevebattle4> I agree (technically) with Henry. We still confuse Containment and aggregation (sorry).

Steve Battle: I agree (technically) with Henry. We still confuse Containment and aggregation (sorry).

13:21:58 <Ashok> q+

Ashok Malhotra: q+

13:22:22 <Arnaud> ack ashok

Arnaud Le Hors: ack ashok

13:23:05 <ericP> stevebattle4, i think we fell back to a semantics where we specifically don't make the distinction

Eric Prud'hommeaux: stevebattle4, i think we fell back to a semantics where we specifically don't make the distinction

13:24:13 <ericP> that's not the same as confusing them, it's simply that we didn't find sufficient achievable use cases for the additional bookkeeping of separating them

Eric Prud'hommeaux: that's not the same as confusing them, it's simply that we didn't find sufficient achievable use cases for the additional bookkeeping of separating them

13:24:40 <JohnArwe> q+

John Arwe: q+

13:25:31 <Arnaud> ack john

Arnaud Le Hors: ack john

13:27:38 <roger> +q

+q

13:27:51 <Ashok> q+

Ashok Malhotra: q+

13:28:55 <Arnaud> ack roger

Arnaud Le Hors: ack roger

13:31:38 <Arnaud> ack ashok

Arnaud Le Hors: ack ashok

13:32:58 <Zakim> -Sandro

Zakim IRC Bot: -Sandro

13:36:51 <ericP> there are a *huge* number of management issues that come up when we go down this route.

Eric Prud'hommeaux: there are a *huge* number of management issues that come up when we go down this route.

13:37:22 <JohnArwe> @ericp, which 'route', contains?

John Arwe: @ericp, which 'route', contains?

13:38:17 <ericP> discussions of membership and deletability and LDPR references to 1/some/all LDPCs

Eric Prud'hommeaux: discussio