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
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
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
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
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
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
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
09:08:52 <rgarcia> subtopic: 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
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?
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?
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
09:25:25 <SteveS> 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+
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?
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+
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
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
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?
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?
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?
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
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
12:54:23 <bblfish> 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+
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: discussions of membership and deletability and LDPR references to 1/some/all LDPCs ←
13:40:27 <ericP> for instance, i don't think that ldp:created is nearly as useful as ldp:managesN where N is some set of POST/PUT/DELETE operations on the resource that reflect back on the container
Eric Prud'hommeaux: for instance, i don't think that ldp:created is nearly as useful as ldp:managesN where N is some set of POST/PUT/DELETE operations on the resource that reflect back on the container ←
13:41:47 <Zakim> -ericP
Zakim IRC Bot: -ericP ←
13:47:05 <stevebattle4> I need to drop out for an hour or so, my current position is +1 on Henry's proposal.
(No events recorded for 5 minutes)
Steve Battle: I need to drop out for an hour or so, my current position is +1 on Henry's proposal. ←
13:47:10 <Zakim> -SteveBattle
Zakim IRC Bot: -SteveBattle ←
13:58:53 <Arnaud> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2013Apr/0123.html
(No events recorded for 11 minutes)
Arnaud Le Hors: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2013Apr/0123.html ←
13:59:22 <rgarcia> Offtopic: Here you have the ticket from yesterday's dinner: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/8536965/Ticket.jpg
Raúl García Castro: Offtopic: Here you have the ticket from yesterday's dinner: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/8536965/Ticket.jpg ←
14:01:33 <Zakim> +[GVoice]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[GVoice] ←
<cody> scribe: cody
(Scribe set to Cody Burleson)
14:01:42 <cody> Arnaud: We have a resolution on how we close 59.
Arnaud Le Hors: We have a resolution on how we close 59. ←
14:02:55 <cody> Ashok: Could we agree on option B today? (Arnaud's option B).
Ashok Malhotra: Could we agree on option B today? (Arnaud's option B). ←
14:04:17 <ericP> q+ to say that i don't think that the extra ldp:created is as useful as a reference to some management profile
Eric Prud'hommeaux: q+ to say that i don't think that the extra ldp:created is as useful as a reference to some management profile ←
14:04:37 <Arnaud> one possibility: add that on creating a new member resource using POST, LDP servers SHOULD add a triple a la : <> ldp:contains <newly_created_resource>
Arnaud Le Hors: one possibility: add that on creating a new member resource using POST, LDP servers SHOULD add a triple a la : <> ldp:contains <newly_created_resource> ←
14:04:59 <Arnaud> possibly changing ldp:contains to ldp:created
Arnaud Le Hors: possibly changing ldp:contains to ldp:created ←
14:05:06 <cody> Henry: the contains takes into account the deletion semantics
Henry Story: the contains takes into account the deletion semantics ←
14:05:06 <Arnaud> ack eric
Arnaud Le Hors: ack eric ←
14:05:06 <Zakim> ericP, you wanted to say that i don't think that the extra ldp:created is as useful as a reference to some management profile
Zakim IRC Bot: ericP, you wanted to say that i don't think that the extra ldp:created is as useful as a reference to some management profile ←
14:05:47 <Ashok> q+
Ashok Malhotra: q+ ←
14:06:21 <cody> ericP: I don't think ldl:created or ldl:contains (whatever) is useful, because it will just be used as a proxy. The fact that it was created is a poor proxy for a management profile. You can't say that this is a different delete semantics than we had.
Eric Prud'hommeaux: I don't think ldl:created or ldl:contains (whatever) is useful, because it will just be used as a proxy. The fact that it was created is a poor proxy for a management profile. You can't say that this is a different delete semantics than we had. ←
14:06:22 <Arnaud> ack ashok
Arnaud Le Hors: ack ashok ←
14:07:02 <cody> Ashok: Can we agree ONLY on adding the extra relation
Ashok Malhotra: Can we agree ONLY on adding the extra relation ←
14:07:15 <cody> … we can then speak of MAY or SHOULD.
… we can then speak of MAY or SHOULD. ←
14:07:32 <cody> ericP: can we at least see a use case?
Eric Prud'hommeaux: can we at least see a use case? ←
14:08:28 <cody> Henry: it's like Atom entry relation.
Henry Story: it's like Atom entry relation. ←
14:09:34 <SteveS> q+
Steve Speicher: q+ ←
14:09:45 <cody> Henry: One thing - you'd like to have on a container, when you create a resource you want browsers to have at least one relation they can rely on (without necessarily having to wait on the whole stream of relations).
Henry Story: One thing - you'd like to have on a container, when you create a resource you want browsers to have at least one relation they can rely on (without necessarily having to wait on the whole stream of relations). ←
14:09:48 <Arnaud> ack steves
Arnaud Le Hors: ack steves ←
14:11:59 <cody> ericP: this is not membership; this is specifically that the resource was created by the container
Eric Prud'hommeaux: this is not membership; this is specifically that the resource was created by the container ←
14:12:04 <cody> all: yes!
all: yes! ←
14:13:42 <cody> ericP: by itself, the fact that you created something is not actionable
Eric Prud'hommeaux: by itself, the fact that you created something is not actionable ←
14:13:53 <cody> … you have to add delete semantics.
… you have to add delete semantics. ←
14:14:17 <cody> … I think this actually only stands to confuse the issue that people are actually going to want to solve.
… I think this actually only stands to confuse the issue that people are actually going to want to solve. ←
14:14:48 <cody> Henry: This is just naming the relation, declaratively.
Henry Story: This is just naming the relation, declaratively. ←
14:15:00 <cody> ericP: so can we name it appropriately?
Eric Prud'hommeaux: so can we name it appropriately? ←
14:15:28 <cody> Arnaud: the proposal was ldpCreated
Arnaud Le Hors: the proposal was ldpCreated ←
14:15:37 <cody> ericP: but it has no actionable semantics
Eric Prud'hommeaux: but it has no actionable semantics ←
14:15:55 <cody> Henry: Its saying that if you delete it, you remove the relation
Henry Story: Its saying that if you delete it, you remove the relation ←
14:16:13 <cody> ericP: the spec already says that, so that doesn't really add anything
Eric Prud'hommeaux: the spec already says that, so that doesn't really add anything ←
14:17:56 <cody> ericP: My real concern here is that we don't have any real actionable semantics here.
Eric Prud'hommeaux: My real concern here is that we don't have any real actionable semantics here. ←
14:18:44 <Ashok> q+
Ashok Malhotra: q+ ←
14:19:01 <cody> Henry: I say ldpContains (what is created in this container and still not deleted.)
Henry Story: I say ldpContains (what is created in this container and still not deleted.) ←
14:19:05 <Arnaud> ack ashok
Arnaud Le Hors: ack ashok ←
14:19:26 <cody> Ashok: If we were to ask that we agree on this, would you vote against this?
Ashok Malhotra: If we were to ask that we agree on this, would you vote against this? ←
14:19:36 <cody> ericP: No. I won't stand in the way.
Eric Prud'hommeaux: No. I won't stand in the way. ←
14:20:06 <Arnaud> PROPOSAL: add that on creating a new member resource using POST, LDP servers SHOULD add a triple a la : <> ldp:created <newly_created_resource>
PROPOSED: add that on creating a new member resource using POST, LDP servers SHOULD add a triple a la : <> ldp:created <newly_created_resource> ←
14:20:47 <cody> Henry: I prefer ldp:contains
Henry Story: I prefer ldp:contains ←
14:21:59 <bblfish> and you would remove the triple, if it the resource is deleted
Henry Story: and you would remove the triple, if it the resource is deleted ←
14:22:51 <cody> Ashok: You don't have to have both member and contains; contains implies member.
Ashok Malhotra: You don't have to have both member and contains; contains implies member. ←
14:23:25 <SteveS> I wonder if this can be solved with some existing vocabulary but not finding it in http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-o/
Steve Speicher: I wonder if this can be solved with some existing vocabulary but not finding it in http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-o/ ←
14:24:11 <cody> Arnaud: you have 2 triples for every attachment that was created through the container (referring to the scratch work in the PiratePad document)
Arnaud Le Hors: you have 2 triples for every attachment that was created through the container (referring to the scratch work in the PiratePad document) ←
14:24:53 <JohnArwe> +1 concept/MAY, hard to swallow a SHOULD (given the 2119 meaning of SHOULD) on this
John Arwe: +1 concept/MAY, hard to swallow a SHOULD (given the 2119 meaning of SHOULD) on this ←
14:25:24 <rgarcia> JohnArwe, yes, I was also wondering about the SHOULD
Raúl García Castro: JohnArwe, yes, I was also wondering about the SHOULD ←
14:25:50 <cody> … it gives the client a bit more information about how these things came to life. But there is a cost of extra triples.
… it gives the client a bit more information about how these things came to life. But there is a cost of extra triples. ←
14:26:22 <cody> … The spec says that if you delete attachment 3, the membership triple will be removed.
… The spec says that if you delete attachment 3, the membership triple will be removed. ←
14:26:47 <SteveS> +0 prefer MAY
Steve Speicher: +0 prefer MAY ←
14:28:03 <cody> Arnaud: So there is the possibility to change the proposal from SHOUL to MAY
Arnaud Le Hors: So there is the possibility to change the proposal from SHOUL to MAY ←
14:28:15 <ericP> s/COULD/MIGHT/ ?
Eric Prud'hommeaux: s/COULD/MIGHT/ ? (warning: replacement failed) ←
14:28:16 <cody> Raul: Why MAY? I would say MUST.
Raúl García Castro: Why MAY? I would say MUST. ←
14:28:56 <cody> Arnaud: I guess there is a nonmonicity issue there that I think ericP was touching on before.
Arnaud Le Hors: I guess there is a nonmonicity issue there that I think ericP was touching on before. ←
14:29:22 <cody> JohnArwe: In RDF the absence of knowledge is different than saying 'not something'
John Arwe: In RDF the absence of knowledge is different than saying 'not something' ←
14:29:55 <cody> Arnaud: I don't think trying to turn it into a MUST is going to fly (given current opinions across team)
Arnaud Le Hors: I don't think trying to turn it into a MUST is going to fly (given current opinions across team) ←
14:30:09 <cody> … we can make it a proposal...
… we can make it a proposal... ←
14:30:16 <Arnaud> PROPOSAL: A) add that on creating a new member resource using POST, LDP servers SHOULD add a triple a la : <> ldp:created <newly_created_resource> B) s/SHOULD/MAY/
PROPOSED: A) add that on creating a new member resource using POST, LDP servers SHOULD add a triple a la : <> ldp:created <newly_created_resource> B) s/SHOULD/MAY/ ←
14:30:42 <Ashok> A
Ashok Malhotra: A ←
14:30:48 <SteveS> A +0 B +0.1
Steve Speicher: A +0 B +0.1 ←
14:30:49 <bblfish> A: +1 B: +0.5
Henry Story: A: +1 B: +0.5 ←
14:31:06 <mesteban_> A +0.5 B -0.5
Miguel Esteban Gutiérrez: A +0.5 B -0.5 ←
14:31:12 <rgarcia> A: -0, B: -0.5
Raúl García Castro: A: -0, B: -0.5 ←
14:31:17 <Ashok> A +1, B+0
Ashok Malhotra: A +1, B+0 ←
14:31:33 <nmihindu> A: +0.5 B: +0
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: A: +0.5 B: +0 ←
14:31:42 <JohnArwe> A: -0, +1
14:31:52 <krp> A: +1, B: +1
Kevin Page: A: +1, B: +1 ←
14:32:43 <mielvds> A: +0 B: +0.5
Miel Vander Sande: A: +0 B: +0.5 ←
14:32:51 <roger> A: -0.5, B: +1
Roger Menday: A: -0.5, B: +1 ←
14:32:59 <ericP> A: -0 B: -0
Eric Prud'hommeaux: A: -0 B: -0 ←
14:33:55 <cody> A+1,B+0
A+1,B+0 ←
14:34:14 <ericP> i see B down by 1.9 after cody's vote
Eric Prud'hommeaux: i see B down by 1.9 after cody's vote ←
14:35:54 <JohnArwe> I get A=4.5, B=5 ericp. hmmm.
John Arwe: I get A=4.5, B=5 ericp. hmmm. ←
14:36:27 <cody> Arnaud: The group is clearly divided.
Arnaud Le Hors: The group is clearly divided. ←
14:36:42 <cody> JohnArwe: It's not clear consensus.
John Arwe: It's not clear consensus. ←
14:37:00 <cody> Arnaud: I think we should make it a MAY if Henry is satisfied with that.
Arnaud Le Hors: I think we should make it a MAY if Henry is satisfied with that. ←
14:37:09 <cody> Henry: That's fine with me.
Henry Story: That's fine with me. ←
14:37:25 <cody> Arnaud: Sorry Raul, but...
Arnaud Le Hors: Sorry Raul, but... ←
14:37:46 <ericP> JohnArwe, were you counting "<SteveS> A +0 B +0.1" as +1 for B?
Eric Prud'hommeaux: JohnArwe, were you counting "<SteveS> A +0 B +0.1" as +1 for B? ←
14:38:07 <ericP> 'cause i now get 4.5/4.1
Eric Prud'hommeaux: 'cause i now get 4.5/4.1 ←
14:39:03 <cody> Arnaud: I think we should close issue 79.
Arnaud Le Hors: I think we should close ISSUE-79. ←
14:39:09 <JohnArwe> @ericp no I have 0.1. but I guess water under the bridge
John Arwe: @ericp no I have 0.1. but I guess water under the bridge ←
14:39:18 <JohnArwe> close issue-79
14:39:19 <trackbot> Closed ISSUE-79 ldp:contains.
Trackbot IRC Bot: Closed ISSUE-79 ldp:contains. ←
14:39:41 <JohnArwe> re-open issue-79
14:40:48 <cody> Henry: If you look at issue 79, an LDPR that was created by a container could say, "this container created me"
Henry Story: If you look at ISSUE-79, an LDPR that was created by a container could say, "this container created me" ←
14:41:04 <cody> Raul: Why not create an inverse property for that?
Raúl García Castro: Why not create an inverse property for that? ←
14:41:09 <Arnaud> Resolved: 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>
RESOLVED: 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> ←
<cody> subtopic: Issue-73
14:41:54 <cody> Arnaud: Is 73 still relevant?
Arnaud Le Hors: Is 73 still relevant? ←
14:42:31 <cody> … This renders 73 irrelevant and thereby we close 73. I want to minute that. Is that OK with you, Henry?
… This renders 73 irrelevant and thereby we close 73. I want to minute that. Is that OK with you, Henry? ←
14:42:50 <Arnaud> Resolved: Closed Issue-73, rendered irrelevant by resolution of Issue-79
RESOLVED: Closed ISSUE-73, rendered irrelevant by resolution of ISSUE-79 ←
14:43:24 <bblfish> [[5.6.1 When a LDPC member resource originally created by the LDPC (for example, one whose representation was HTTP POST'd to the LDPC and then referenced by a membership triple) is deleted, and the LDPC server is aware of the member's deletion (for example, the member is managed by the same server), the LDPC server must also remove it from the LDPC by removing the corresponding membership triple.]]
Henry Story: [[5.6.1 When a LDPC member resource originally created by the LDPC (for example, one whose representation was HTTP POST'd to the LDPC and then referenced by a membership triple) is deleted, and the LDPC server is aware of the member's deletion (for example, the member is managed by the same server), the LDPC server must also remove it from the LDPC by removing the corresponding membership triple.]] ←
14:43:56 <cody> Henry… and removing the corresponding ldl:created
Henry… and removing the corresponding ldp:created ←
14:44:06 <cody> … can we add that to that statement?
… can we add that to that statement? ←
14:44:08 <bblfish> add to that [[ remove the ldp:created also ]]
Henry Story: add to that [[ remove the ldp:created also ]] ←
14:44:27 <JohnArwe> s/ldl:/ldp:/
14:44:58 <cody> Arnaud: Two more issues in the seventies: 71, 72, 78 (all related)
Arnaud Le Hors: Two more issues in the seventies: 71, 72, 78 (all related) ←
14:45:10 <JohnArwe> basically editors need to think about ldp:contains implications whereever membership triples are managed today
John Arwe: basically editors need to think about ldp:contains implications whereever membership triples are managed today ←
14:46:13 <Arnaud> subtopic: Issue-77
14:46:27 <SteveS> q+
Steve Speicher: q+ ←
14:46:51 <bblfish> 1+
Henry Story: 1+ ←
14:46:53 <bblfish> q+
Henry Story: q+ ←
14:46:55 <Arnaud> ack steves
Arnaud Le Hors: ack steves ←
14:47:11 <JohnArwe> roger: is this about 4.1.6, vs 4.1.5?
Roger Menday: is this about 4.1.6, vs 4.1.5? [ Scribe Assist by John Arwe ] ←
14:47:56 <Arnaud> ack bblfish
Arnaud Le Hors: ack bblfish ←
14:48:08 <cody> SteveS: (Use cases that motivated this)
Steve Speicher: (Use cases that motivated this) ←
14:49:43 <cody> Henry: Inferencing level 0 (a client should be able to follow links without creating any new links and get the minimal function-functionality)
Henry Story: Inferencing level 0 (a client should be able to follow links without creating any new links and get the minimal function-functionality) ←
14:49:45 <rgarcia> q+
Raúl García Castro: q+ ←
14:49:56 <Arnaud> ack rgarcia
Arnaud Le Hors: ack rgarcia ←
14:50:13 <bblfish> +1 agree in any case with Issue-77
Henry Story: +1 agree in any case with ISSUE-77 ←
14:50:31 <cody> Raul: I think we can remove this part.
Raúl García Castro: I think we can remove this part. ←
14:50:55 <cody> Arnaud: But we could turn the MUST in to a SHOULD (another option) or move it to the LDP Best Practices and Guidelines
Arnaud Le Hors: But we could turn the MUST in to a SHOULD (another option) or move it to the LDP Best Practices and Guidelines ←
14:51:01 <roger> +q
Roger Menday: +q ←
14:51:15 <Arnaud> ack roger
Arnaud Le Hors: ack roger ←
14:51:22 <cody> Raul: I would prefer to move it outside and deal with the whole problem of type representation and type validation...
Raúl García Castro: I would prefer to move it outside and deal with the whole problem of type representation and type validation... ←
14:52:11 <cody> Roger: LDPC definition is really good. LDPR says go this section. Thought you could be more concise with that definition in LDPR like we've done with LDPC.
Roger Menday: LDPC definition is really good. LDPR says go this section. Thought you could be more concise with that definition in LDPR like we've done with LDPC. ←
14:52:44 <cody> JohnArwe: A lot of what were talking about in the LDPR is about LDP servers.
John Arwe: A lot of what were talking about in the LDPR is about LDP servers. ←
14:53:27 <Arnaud> PROPOSAL: Close Issue-77, remove section 4.1.5 and add the recommendation to the best practices doc
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-77, remove section 4.1.5 and add the recommendation to the best practices doc ←
14:53:54 <mesteban_> +1
Miguel Esteban Gutiérrez: +1 ←
14:53:58 <rgarcia> +1
Raúl García Castro: +1 ←
14:53:59 <nmihindu> +1
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: +1 ←
14:54:01 <cody> Roger: Cody, can you propose a concise definition for LDPR like you did for LDPC?
Roger Menday: Cody, can you propose a concise definition for LDPR like you did for LDPC? ←
14:54:18 <roger> +1
Roger Menday: +1 ←
14:54:23 <cody> +1
+1 ←
14:54:28 <SteveS> +.73
Steve Speicher: +.73 ←
14:54:35 <JohnArwe> +0.3
14:54:41 <krp> +0.5
Kevin Page: +0.5 ←
14:55:59 <cody> Henry: Issue with the title of the issue
Henry Story: Issue with the title of the issue ←
14:56:50 <Arnaud> Resolved: Close Issue-77, remove section 4.1.5 and add it as a SHOULD to the best practices doc
RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-77, remove section 4.1.5 and add it as a SHOULD to the best practices doc ←
14:56:55 <cody> Arnaud: I had suggested another title here; I think its better to be more assertive about the problem.
Arnaud Le Hors: I had suggested another title here; I think its better to be more assertive about the problem. ←
14:57:47 <cody> Raul: Isn't everything in the Best Practices a SHOUL by implication?
Raúl García Castro: Isn't everything in the Best Practices a SHOULD by implication? ←
14:57:51 <cody> Arnaud: right
Arnaud Le Hors: right ←
14:58:09 <nmihindu> s/SHOUL/SHOULD
14:58:09 <cody> s/SHOUL/SHOULD
14:59:20 <cody> subtopic: ISSUE-72
14:59:26 <bblfish> Issue-72?
14:59:26 <trackbot> ISSUE-72 -- The object of a membership triple isn't always the address of the created informational resource -- open
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-72 -- The object of a membership triple isn't always the address of the created informational resource -- open ←
14:59:26 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/72
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/72 ←
15:00:44 <cody> Arnaud: There was an email where you guys were talking about this… I think it puts the finger on it.
Arnaud Le Hors: There was an email where you guys were talking about this… I think it puts the finger on it. ←
15:00:51 <bblfish> But this is compatible with it being possible for non-reasoning clients ( ISSUE-78 ) to read LDPCs and work out what the ldpc's members are ( ISSUE-73 (rdf:member) and ISSUE-79 (ldp:contains)), without needing to do that reasoning. Ie: it would be better to list the ldp:members in LDPCs clearly, and have the reasoning be there to tell clients what the effect of POSTing a new resource will be: create a new relation ( and if possible do this declaratively ). Curre[CUT]
Henry Story: But this is compatible with it being possible for non-reasoning clients ( ISSUE-78 ) to read LDPCs and work out what the ldpc's members are ( ISSUE-73 (rdf:member) and ISSUE-79 (ldp:contains)), without needing to do that reasoning. Ie: it would be better to list the ldp:members in LDPCs clearly, and have the reasoning be there to tell clients what the effect of POSTing a new resource will be: create a new relation ( and if possible do this declaratively ). Curre[CUT] ←
15:00:51 <bblfish> is the opposite that is happening: reasoning is required to tell what the members of an ldpc is.
Henry Story: is the opposite that is happening: reasoning is required to tell what the members of an ldpc is. ←
15:00:55 <cody> SteveS: That email is 6 layers deep and 200 pages long
Steve Speicher: That email is 6 layers deep and 200 pages long ←
15:01:00 <bblfish> ~~~~POST /ldpc/ HTTP/1.1 ~~~~~~~~~~
Henry Story: ~~~~POST /ldpc/ HTTP/1.1 ~~~~~~~~~~ ←
15:01:01 <bblfish> <otherbug#bug> beatle:relatesTo <> .
Henry Story: <otherbug#bug> beatle:relatesTo <> . ←
15:01:03 <bblfish> <> a beatle:BugReport;
Henry Story: <> a beatle:BugReport; ←
15:01:04 <bblfish> dc:title "Another silly bug";
Henry Story: dc:title "Another silly bug"; ←
15:01:05 <bblfish> dc:author </joe#me> ;
Henry Story: dc:author </joe#me> ; ←
15:01:06 <bblfish> ...
Henry Story: ... ←
15:01:07 <bblfish> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Henry Story: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ←
15:02:45 <JohnArwe> http://piratepad.net/ge4VKecQWa
John Arwe: http://piratepad.net/ge4VKecQWa ←
15:03:38 <cody> Ignore IRC posted example - move this to the PiratePad link above.
Ignore IRC posted example - move this to the PiratePad link above. ←
15:05:38 <nmihindu> this email also might be helpful - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2013May/0199.html
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: this email also might be helpful - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2013May/0199.html ←
15:05:53 <cody> (pets:hasPet)
(pets:hasPet) ←
15:07:08 <cody> Henry: You are kind of forcing your users to relate things only to documents (instead of say - just things). You'd be forcing everyone to create a certain type of data structure where objects of relation would only be a certain type of informational resource (unacceptable).
Henry Story: You are kind of forcing your users to relate things only to documents (instead of say - just things). You'd be forcing everyone to create a certain type of data structure where objects of relation would only be a certain type of informational resource (unacceptable). ←
15:07:53 <cody> Arnaud: The point Roger is making, is that he doesn't want the document to be the member, but to be in the object position of the membership triple
Arnaud Le Hors: The point Roger is making, is that he doesn't want the document to be the member, but to be in the object position of the membership triple ←
15:08:22 <cody> Henry: You can logically have this relation, but not by posting to a container.
Henry Story: You can logically have this relation, but not by posting to a container. ←
15:13:51 <cody> Henry: When we post something, why don't we add the links to the other resources ...
(No events recorded for 5 minutes)
Henry Story: When we post something, why don't we add the links to the other resources ... ←
15:14:55 <cody> Roger: The posted document has this sort of relative URL inside. You're kind of absolutizing the identity of the LDPR.
Roger Menday: The posted document has this sort of relative URL inside. You're kind of absolutizing the identity of the LDPR. ←
15:15:13 <cody> … seems a bit weird.
… seems a bit weird. ←
15:16:23 <cody> JohnArwe: primaryTopic might be a a particular option for filling gap, but there would certainly be others.
John Arwe: primaryTopic might be a a particular option for filling gap, but there would certainly be others. ←
15:16:47 <cody> Roger: ldp:primaryTopic?
Roger Menday: ldp:primaryTopic? ←
15:17:44 <cody> nmihindu: foaf:primaryTopic could cause problems with existing data and not having necessaystinction in context of LDP
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: foaf:primaryTopic could cause problems with existing data and not having necessary distinction in context of LDP ←
15:17:56 <SteveS> q+
Steve Speicher: q+ ←
15:19:14 <cody> Arnaud: there is a big difference between membershipObject and primaryTopic, right?
Arnaud Le Hors: there is a big difference between membershipObject and primaryTopic, right? ←
15:20:05 <cody> s/necessaystinction/necessary distinction
15:20:13 <Arnaud> ack steves
Arnaud Le Hors: ack steves ←
15:23:17 <rgarcia> http://piratepad.net/ge4VKecQWa
Raúl García Castro: http://piratepad.net/ge4VKecQWa ←
15:25:28 <cody> Arnaud: I actually don't relying on foaf:primaryTopic is right for the spec
Arnaud Le Hors: I actually don't relying on foaf:primaryTopic is right for the spec ←
15:26:53 <cody> Miel: Added:
Miel Vander Sande: Added: ←
15:26:54 <cody> <> a ldp:Container;
<> a ldp:Container; ←
15:26:55 <cody> rdfs:member <pets> .
rdfs:member <pets> . ←
15:26:56 <cody> <pets> a ldp:Container;
<pets> a ldp:Container; ←
15:26:57 <cody> ldp:membershipPredicate foaf:primaryTopic;
ldp:membershipPredicate foaf:primaryTopic; ←
15:26:58 <cody> ldp:membershipSubject </people/roger> .
ldp:membershipSubject </people/roger> . ←
15:28:05 <cody> Arnaud: Not sure how that achieves the relation Roger wanted.
Arnaud Le Hors: Not sure how that achieves the relation Roger wanted. ←
15:31:13 <cody> Henry: You need to put owl:sameAs
Henry Story: You need to put owl:sameAs ←
15:35:44 <cody> Team is sorting out (trying to word) proposal on all just discussed on ISSUE-72 in the pad doc.
Team is sorting out (trying to word) proposal on all just discussed on ISSUE-72 in the pad doc. ←
15:40:33 <Arnaud> PROPOSAL: 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.
PROPOSED: 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. ←
15:40:48 <bblfish> ldp:membershipObject rdfs:Property;
Henry Story: ldp:membershipObject rdfs:Property; ←
15:40:49 <bblfish> rdfs:domain ldp:Container;
Henry Story: rdfs:domain ldp:Container; ←
15:40:50 <bblfish> rdfs:range [ a rdf:Property;
Henry Story: rdfs:range [ a rdf:Property; ←
15:40:51 <bblfish> rdfs:domain ldp:Resource ] .
Henry Story: rdfs:domain ldp:Resource ] . ←
15:42:44 <cody> JohnArwe amended ¨… 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."
JohnArwe amended ¨… 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." ←
15:42:49 <Arnaud> PROPOSAL: 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.
PROPOSED: 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. ←
15:43:30 <cody> JohnArwe: Were going to need examples in the primer for this too.
John Arwe: Were going to need examples in the primer for this too. ←
15:46:01 <cody> Arnaud: The vote, please:
Arnaud Le Hors: The vote, please: ←
15:46:09 <SteveS> +1
Steve Speicher: +1 ←
15:46:15 <Ashok> +1
Ashok Malhotra: +1 ←
15:46:17 <cody> +0 (ignorance on this)
+0 (ignorance on this) ←
15:46:19 <mielvds> +0
Miel Vander Sande: +0 ←
15:46:22 <JohnArwe> +1
15:46:25 <nmihindu> +1
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: +1 ←
15:46:31 <roger> +1
Roger Menday: +1 ←
15:46:42 <krp> +0.5
Kevin Page: +0.5 ←
15:46:50 <bblfish> Arnaud said: if people have better ideas please propose them later. Vote if you think this is good enough compared to the current competition.
Henry Story: Arnaud said: if people have better ideas please propose them later. Vote if you think this is good enough compared to the current competition. ←
15:46:52 <bblfish> +1
Henry Story: +1 ←
15:47:01 <ericP> +0
Eric Prud'hommeaux: +0 ←
15:47:03 <mesteban_> +0.5
Miguel Esteban Gutiérrez: +0.5 ←
15:47:12 <rgarcia> +0.5 (don't like the name of the property)
Raúl García Castro: +0.5 (don't like the name of the property) ←
15:47:42 <Arnaud> Resolved: 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.
RESOLVED: 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. ←
15:48:37 <cody> Arnaud: It is a quarter to 6:00. We've made good progress. Big issues have been addressed. Looking at the list of issues now… We have 78 and 71 (71 being the master)...
Arnaud Le Hors: It is a quarter to 6:00. We've made good progress. Big issues have been addressed. Looking at the list of issues now… We have 78 and 71 (71 being the master)... ←
15:50:03 <cody> … (issues remaining, that is)
… (issues remaining, that is) ←
15:50:21 <cody> SteveS: I have an easy issue; I submitted a proposal for 66.
Steve Speicher: I have an easy issue; I submitted a proposal for 66. ←
15:50:50 <cody> Arnaud: Also 68. Either one.
Arnaud Le Hors: Also 68. Either one. ←
15:51:17 <cody> subtopic: ISSUE-68
15:51:18 <cody> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/68
http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/68 ←
15:51:49 <cody> Ashok: Close it. Because the number of items you want will depend on your client.
Ashok Malhotra: Close it. Because the number of items you want will depend on your client. ←
15:52:59 <cody> … the exact number will depend on what the client, user agent is, and what the server thinks that the capabilities of the client is. The point is that the server doesn't know enough.
… the exact number will depend on what the client, user agent is, and what the server thinks that the capabilities of the client is. The point is that the server doesn't know enough. ←
15:53:29 <cody> SteveS: You can parse the content and learn the number of resources. So, including it is just possibly going to be duplicate and wrong information.
Steve Speicher: You can parse the content and learn the number of resources. So, including it is just possibly going to be duplicate and wrong information. ←
15:53:46 <cody> Arnaud: I think Steve Battle raised this question. He's not on.
Arnaud Le Hors: I think Steve Battle raised this question. He's not on. ←
15:54:09 <cody> … I already sent an email saying this is at risk. There is no concrete proposal.
… I already sent an email saying this is at risk. There is no concrete proposal. ←
15:55:07 <cody> JohnArwe: too much variability
John Arwe: too much variability ←
15:56:33 <Arnaud> PROPOSAL: Close Issue-68, doing nothing. The page size can change from one page to another based on the application logic.
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-68, doing nothing. The page size can change from one page to another based on the application logic. ←
15:56:37 <SteveS> +1
Steve Speicher: +1 ←
15:56:38 <cody> +1
+1 ←
15:56:50 <rgarcia> +1
Raúl García Castro: +1 ←
15:56:51 <krp> +1
Kevin Page: +1 ←
15:56:53 <mielvds> +
15:56:53 <nmihindu> +1
Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: +1 ←
15:56:55 <mesteban_> +1
Miguel Esteban Gutiérrez: +1 ←
15:56:55 <mielvds> +1
Miel Vander Sande: +1 ←
15:56:56 <roger> +1
Roger Menday: +1 ←
15:57:07 <Arnaud> Resolved: Close Issue-68, doing nothing. The page size can change from one page to another based on the application logic.
RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-68, doing nothing. The page size can change from one page to another based on the application logic. ←
15:57:21 <cody> subtopic: ISSUE-66
15:57:34 <cody> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/66
http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/66 ←
15:57:59 <cody> Arnaud: We left this open yesterday with an action item on SteveS to come up with a proposal.
Arnaud Le Hors: We left this open yesterday with an action item on SteveS to come up with a proposal. ←
15:58:16 <cody> SteveS: I posted the proposal on the mailing list.
Steve Speicher: I posted the proposal on the mailing list. ←
16:00:55 <bblfish> sounds reasonable to me
Henry Story: sounds reasonable to me ←
16:01:08 <cody> … The essence of this robust pagination issue was really about how when you navigate down pages, how do you know when the thing your paging over has changed out from underneath you. One thought was that we stick some header in. So, this optimization is that whenever I am fetching each page, some info will come back about when the resource was last modified. I'm suggesting some non-member property e-tag.
… The essence of this robust pagination issue was really about how when you navigate down pages, how do you know when the thing your paging over has changed out from underneath you. One thought was that we stick some header in. So, this optimization is that whenever I am fetching each page, some info will come back about when the resource was last modified. I'm suggesting some non-member property e-tag. ←
16:02:10 <cody> Arnaud: Let's wait so that we can respond and debate with eric, who has taken issue to this.
Arnaud Le Hors: Let's wait so that we can respond and debate with erik, who has taken issue to this. ←
16:02:24 <ericP> erik, i presume
Eric Prud'hommeaux: erik, i presume ←
16:02:33 <JohnArwe> yes
16:02:44 <JohnArwe> s/eric,/erik,/
16:04:15 <rgarcia> http://www.w3.org/2011/http-headers#
Raúl García Castro: http://www.w3.org/2011/http-headers# ←
16:04:34 <rgarcia> this contains the instances
Raúl García Castro: this contains the instances ←
16:04:44 <rgarcia> and this the classes
Raúl García Castro: and this the classes ←
16:04:44 <rgarcia> http://www.w3.org/2011/http#
Raúl García Castro: http://www.w3.org/2011/http# ←
16:09:04 <cody> Arnaud: This is again an optimization. Were trying to give the client a shortcut.
Arnaud Le Hors: This is again an optimization. Were trying to give the client a shortcut. ←
16:09:32 <cody> Kevin: But its several round-trips for the client if we leave it out; not just one.
Kevin Page: But its several round-trips for the client if we leave it out; not just one. ←
16:10:15 <cody> Arnaud: Let's leave it until tomorrow. But let's remember that we can always consider leaving it out of the spec for this round.
Arnaud Le Hors: Let's leave it until tomorrow. But let's remember that we can always consider leaving it out of the spec for this round. ←
16:11:08 <cody> Arnaud: Adjourning for the day.
Arnaud Le Hors: Adjourning for the day. ←
16:11:22 <Zakim> -ericP
Zakim IRC Bot: -ericP ←
16:12:57 <Zakim> -m
Zakim IRC Bot: -m ←
16:12:58 <Zakim> SW_LDP(F2F)2:30AM has ended
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_LDP(F2F)2:30AM has ended ←
16:12:58 <Zakim> Attendees were m, ericP, Sandro, SteveBattle
Zakim IRC Bot: Attendees were m, ericP, Sandro, SteveBattle ←
Formatted by CommonScribe