edit

Linked Data Platform (LDP) Working Group Teleconference

Minutes of 20 June 2013

Agenda
http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/F2F3#Day_3_-_Thursday_June_20
Present
John Arwe, Steve Speicher, Raúl García Castro, Arnaud Le Hors, Miel Vander Sande, Ashok Malhotra, Nandana Mihindukulasooriya, Sandro Hawke, Eric Prud'hommeaux, Henry Story, Cody Burleson, Miguel Esteban Gutiérrez, Roger Menday, Kevin Page, Steve Battle, Andy Seaborne
Chair
Arnaud Le Hors
Scribe
John Arwe, Miel Vander Sande
IRC Log
Original
Resolutions
  1. Tentative plan is to have F2F4 at MIT in Boston Sept 12-13, which is Thu-Fri. link
  2. Close Issue-66 saying we will put it on the wish list. If someone comes in with a concrete proposal that people can quickly agree to, we can still do that later. link
  3. Close issue-16 without making any changes (as is) link
  4. Close Issue-56 without changing the specification. Update Guidelines document to suggest that a 303 response of this type should include the describedby header; perhaps mention the OPTIONS pattern, but leaning against it. link
  5. Close issue-37 as is, and let Ashok address it within the next 2 weeks as part of the normal editorial process of informative content. link
  6. Close issue-62 by updating the best practices or primer or deployment guide to enumerate what the spec allows for solving this link
  7. Close issue-51 without normative changes to specification. Editors may make informative changes to text around containers, and may (assume we do) need more info in companion documents. Need to clarify that containers can be bigger than the minimum we describe, so you can do other things; e.g. you can have an LDPR that is also an LDPC. link
  8. Close issue-50 without change to normative spec, editors to check examples to any untoward use of relative uris, and companion documents to discuss this common pattern for allocating URIs link
  9. Close Issue-78 with normative text like "separating the payload into an LDP-specified part and an application part, the LDP-specific part of LDP messages MUST NOT require inference." link
  10. Close Issue-71, no changes, all related issues have been closed. link
  11. Add an informative section on the possible dangers of inlining resources link
  12. Close Issue-58, per Richard's proposal (described in the decription of the issue), marking the feature AT RISK link
  13. Add a predicate ldp:inlinedResource the object of which is a URI of a linked resource that is fully inlined, marked as AT RISK link
Topics
06:55:24 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/06/20-ldp-irc

RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/06/20-ldp-irc

06:55:26 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public

Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, make logs public

06:55:28 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be LDP

Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, this will be LDP

06:55:28 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_LDP(F2F)2:30AM scheduled to start 25 minutes ago

Zakim IRC Bot: ok, trackbot; I see SW_LDP(F2F)2:30AM scheduled to start 25 minutes ago

06:55:29 <trackbot> Meeting: Linked Data Platform (LDP) Working Group Teleconference
06:55:29 <trackbot> Date: 20 June 2013
07:15:10 <Arnaud> agenda: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/F2F3#Day_3_-_Thursday_June_20
07:15:16 <Arnaud> scribe: john

(No events recorded for 19 minutes)

(Scribe set to John Arwe)

07:15:19 <Arnaud> chair: Arnaud
<Arnaud> present: JohnArwe, SteveS, rgarcia, Arnaud, mielvds, Ashok, nmihindu, sandro, ericp, bblfish, cody, mesteban, roger, krp, stevebattle, AndyS
07:18:38 <JohnArwe> Topic: Next Face to Face meeting

1. Next Face to Face meeting

07:18:46 <JohnArwe> to have or not to have, that is the question

to have or not to have, that is the question

07:19:28 <JohnArwe> done soon, Last Call in July, assuming 8 weeks review period, then question is what happens next

done soon, Last Call in July, assuming 8 weeks review period, then question is what happens next

07:19:44 <JohnArwe> better to plan for F2F and cancel if we decide it's unneeded, rather than the reverse

better to plan for F2F and cancel if we decide it's unneeded, rather than the reverse

07:21:22 <JohnArwe> Question if we should co-locate with RDF validation WG at MIT-Boston Sept 10-11 2013, so we'd meet Thu/Fri that week (12-13th)

Question if we should co-locate with RDF validation WG at MIT-Boston Sept 10-11 2013, so we'd meet Thu/Fri that week (12-13th)

07:23:25 <JohnArwe> W3C Team also had asked if we're going to attend TPAC in November.

W3C Team also had asked if we're going to attend TPAC in November.

07:24:23 <krp> http://iswc2013.semanticweb.org/

Kevin Page: http://iswc2013.semanticweb.org/

07:24:40 <krp> ^ Semantic Web Conference in Sydney 21-25 Oct

Kevin Page: ^ Semantic Web Conference in Sydney 21-25 Oct

07:24:59 <nmihindu> http://iswc2013.semanticweb.org/

Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: http://iswc2013.semanticweb.org/

07:27:18 <JohnArwe> Resolved: Tentative plan is to have F2F4 at MIT in Boston Sept 12-13, which is Thu-Fri.

RESOLVED: Tentative plan is to have F2F4 at MIT in Boston Sept 12-13, which is Thu-Fri.

07:27:40 <JohnArwe> Arnaud will ask ericp/sandro if they're OK to host

Arnaud will ask ericp/sandro if they're OK to host

<JohnArwe> topic: LDP Specification Pending Issues - continues

2. LDP Specification Pending Issues - continues

07:28:48 <JohnArwe> subTopic: Issue-66

2.1. ISSUE-66

07:29:54 <bblfish> q+

Henry Story: q+

07:30:24 <Arnaud> ack bblfish

Arnaud Le Hors: ack bblfish

07:40:08 <JohnArwe> Discussion about paging stability

(No events recorded for 9 minutes)

Discussion about paging stability

07:40:15 <JohnArwe> q?

q?

07:42:34 <JohnArwe> Proposal from Arnaud: close Issue-66 saying we will put it on the wish list. If someone comes in with a concrete proposal that people can quickly agree to, we can still do that later.

Proposal from Arnaud: close ISSUE-66 saying we will put it on the wish list. If someone comes in with a concrete proposal that people can quickly agree to, we can still do that later.

07:42:55 <JohnArwe> i.e. for now it gets handled at the app level

i.e. for now it gets handled at the app level

07:43:02 <rgarcia> +1

Raúl García Castro: +1

07:43:07 <krp> +1

Kevin Page: +1

07:43:10 <SteveS> +1

Steve Speicher: +1

07:43:11 <nmihindu> +1

Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: +1

07:43:18 <JohnArwe> +1

+1

07:43:25 <mielvds> +1

Miel Vander Sande: +1

07:43:56 <Arnaud1> Resolved: Close Issue-66 saying we will put it on the wish list. If someone comes in with a concrete proposal that people can quickly agree to, we can still do that later.

RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-66 saying we will put it on the wish list. If someone comes in with a concrete proposal that people can quickly agree to, we can still do that later.

07:44:40 <JohnArwe> subTopic: Issue-16

2.2. ISSUE-16

07:44:47 <JohnArwe> issue-16?

ISSUE-16?

07:44:47 <trackbot> ISSUE-16 -- Redirection of non-information resources to BPRs -- open

Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-16 -- Redirection of non-information resources to BPRs -- open

07:44:47 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/16

Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/16

07:48:27 <JohnArwe> Proposal from Arnaud: close issue-16 without making any changes (as is)

Proposal from Arnaud: close ISSUE-16 without making any changes (as is)

07:48:44 <bblfish> +1

Henry Story: +1

07:48:49 <krp> +1

Kevin Page: +1

07:48:52 <mesteban> +1

Miguel Esteban Gutiérrez: +1

07:48:53 <SteveS> +1

Steve Speicher: +1

07:49:08 <rgarcia> +1

Raúl García Castro: +1

07:49:08 <Ashok> +1

Ashok Malhotra: +1

07:49:09 <nmihindu> +1

Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: +1

07:49:13 <mielvds> +1

Miel Vander Sande: +1

07:49:18 <Arnaud> Resolved: Close issue-16 without making any changes (as is)

RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-16 without making any changes (as is)

07:49:50 <JohnArwe> subTopic: Issue-56

2.3. ISSUE-56

07:49:52 <JohnArwe> issue-56?

ISSUE-56?

07:49:52 <trackbot> ISSUE-56 -- How can clients discover LDPR PUT URLs? -- open

Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-56 -- How can clients discover LDPR PUT URLs? -- open

07:49:52 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/56

Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/56

07:51:58 <JohnArwe> 2616  10.3.4 303 See Other

2616 10.3.4 303 See Other

07:51:58 <JohnArwe>    The response to the request can be found under a different URI and

The response to the request can be found under a different URI and

07:51:58 <JohnArwe>    SHOULD be retrieved using a GET method on that resource. This method

SHOULD be retrieved using a GET method on that resource. This method

07:51:58 <JohnArwe>    exists primarily to allow the output of a POST-activated script to

exists primarily to allow the output of a POST-activated script to

07:51:58 <JohnArwe>    redirect the user agent to a selected resource. The new URI is not a

redirect the user agent to a selected resource. The new URI is not a

07:51:58 <JohnArwe>    substitute reference for the originally requested resource. The 303

substitute reference for the originally requested resource. The 303

07:51:58 <JohnArwe>    response MUST NOT be cached, but the response to the second

response MUST NOT be cached, but the response to the second

07:51:59 <JohnArwe>    (redirected) request might be cacheable.

(redirected) request might be cacheable.

07:52:10 <JohnArwe> ...

...

07:52:11 <JohnArwe>    The different URI SHOULD be given by the Location field in the

The different URI SHOULD be given by the Location field in the

07:52:11 <JohnArwe>    response. Unless the request method was HEAD, the entity of the

response. Unless the request method was HEAD, the entity of the

07:52:11 <JohnArwe>    response SHOULD contain a short hypertext note with a hyperlink to

response SHOULD contain a short hypertext note with a hyperlink to

07:52:11 <JohnArwe>    the new URI(s).

the new URI(s).

08:00:12 <JohnArwe> Proposal: Close Issue-56 without changing the specification.  Update Guidelines document to suggest that a 303 response of this type should include the describedby header; perhaps mention the OPTIONS pattern, but leaning against it.

(No events recorded for 8 minutes)

PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-56 without changing the specification. Update Guidelines document to suggest that a 303 response of this type should include the describedby header; perhaps mention the OPTIONS pattern, but leaning against it.

08:01:12 <roger> +1

Roger Menday: +1

08:01:14 <cody> +1

Cody Burleson: +1

08:01:15 <nmihindu> +1

Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: +1

08:01:15 <krp> +1

Kevin Page: +1

08:01:16 <mielvds> +1

Miel Vander Sande: +1

08:01:22 <SteveS> +1

Steve Speicher: +1

08:01:26 <rgarcia> +1

Raúl García Castro: +1

08:01:28 <mesteban> +0.5

Miguel Esteban Gutiérrez: +0.5

08:01:34 <bblfish> +1 (why could the described by header not be in the initial 303 ? )

Henry Story: +1 (why could the described by header not be in the initial 303 ? )

08:01:54 <Arnaud> Resolved: Close Issue-56 without changing the specification.  Update Guidelines document to suggest that a 303 response of this type should include the describedby header; perhaps mention the OPTIONS pattern, but leaning against it.

RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-56 without changing the specification. Update Guidelines document to suggest that a 303 response of this type should include the describedby header; perhaps mention the OPTIONS pattern, but leaning against it.

08:04:24 <cody> subtopic: issue 37

2.4. ISSUE-37

08:05:11 <cody> The problem is that everyone has their own view of what "Data Model" and "Interaction Model" really means/implies

Cody Burleson: The problem is that everyone has their own view of what "Data Model" and "Interaction Model" really means/implies

08:06:59 <bblfish> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/ISSUE-37

Henry Story: ISSUE-37">http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/ISSUE-37

08:11:44 <JohnArwe> ashok: give me an action to work on it

Ashok Malhotra: give me an action to work on it

08:12:00 <JohnArwe> steves: has been open for 6 months; can reassign action 53

Steve Speicher: has been open for 6 months; can reassign ACTION-53

08:12:21 <roger> Nandana: some of the issue 37 stuff will be in the primer too

Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: some of the ISSUE-37 stuff will be in the primer too [ Scribe Assist by Roger Menday ]

08:12:26 <JohnArwe> nandana: some of the content would be appropriate for primer

Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: some of the content would be appropriate for primer

08:12:53 <JohnArwe> bblfish: have wiki page with input from several (url above)

Henry Story: have wiki page with input from several (url above)

08:13:23 <bblfish> wiki page on issue-37 is here http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/ISSUE-37

Henry Story: wiki page on ISSUE-37 is here ISSUE-37">http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/ISSUE-37

08:13:32 <JohnArwe> Proposal from Arnaud: close issue-37 as is, and let Ashok address it within the next 2 weeks as part of the normal editorial process.

Proposal from Arnaud: close ISSUE-37 as is, and let Ashok address it within the next 2 weeks as part of the normal editorial process.

08:14:29 <bblfish> +1 It's non normative issue

Henry Story: +1 It's non normative issue

08:14:32 <JohnArwe> Note that this issue is not normative

Note that this issue is not normative

08:14:39 <nmihindu> +1

Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: +1

08:14:57 <JohnArwe> +1

+1

08:14:58 <SteveS> +!

Steve Speicher: +!

08:14:58 <krp> +1

Kevin Page: +1

08:15:11 <SteveS> +1!

Steve Speicher: +1!

08:15:15 <roger> +1

Roger Menday: +1

08:15:16 <mesteban> +1

Miguel Esteban Gutiérrez: +1

08:15:16 <rgarcia> +1

Raúl García Castro: +1

08:15:31 <Arnaud> Resolved: Close issue-37 as is, and let Ashok address it within the next 2 weeks as part of the normal editorial process of informative content.

RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-37 as is, and let Ashok address it within the next 2 weeks as part of the normal editorial process of informative content.

08:17:00 <Ashok_> Hi Andy ... you there?  I have a question

Ashok Malhotra: Hi Andy ... you there? I have a question

08:30:32 <AndyS> Hello.

(No events recorded for 13 minutes)

Andy Seaborne: Hello.

08:30:50 <AndyS> Askok_ : was that this "Andy"?

Andy Seaborne: Askok_ : was that this "Andy"?

08:31:06 <AndyS> Ashok_ : was that this "Andy"?

Andy Seaborne: Ashok_ : was that this "Andy"?

08:31:12 <roger> everyone is coffee'ing ....

Roger Menday: everyone is coffee'ing ....

08:31:14 <roger> apart from me

Roger Menday: apart from me

08:33:54 <Ashok_> Yes ... we were talking about RDF patch and you had an interesting idea about how to do it

Ashok Malhotra: Yes ... we were talking about RDF patch and you had an interesting idea about how to do it

08:34:05 <Ashok_> ... did you make any progress on it?

Ashok Malhotra: ... did you make any progress on it?

08:35:36 <JohnArwe> everyone was here at 9 too... apart from roger ;-)

everyone was here at 9 too... apart from roger ;-)

08:35:38 <AndyS> TriG based formats (or Talis changesets) don't scale, dont work with bnodes and don't work with datasets (latter less of a problem for LDP).

Andy Seaborne: TriG based formats (or Talis changesets) don't scale, dont work with bnodes and don't work with datasets (latter less of a problem for LDP).

08:35:47 <AndyS> and they don't stream so scaling problems.

Andy Seaborne: and they don't stream so scaling problems.

08:36:21 <AndyS> This analysis has lead to (early draft alert!) http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/JENA/RDF+Delta

Andy Seaborne: This analysis has lead to (early draft alert!) http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/JENA/RDF+Delta

08:36:48 <Ashok_> Sandro said that.  So, that's where we are?

Ashok Malhotra: Sandro said that. So, that's where we are?

08:37:00 <AndyS> which is little more than n-triples + a add/delete marker.

Andy Seaborne: which is little more than n-triples + a add/delete marker.

08:37:02 <JohnArwe> subTopic: Issue-62

2.5. ISSUE-62

08:37:06 <bblfish> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/62

Henry Story: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/62

08:37:16 <JohnArwe> Roger's issue.  We wonder where his proposal, due yesterday, is.

Roger's issue. We wonder where his proposal, due yesterday, is.

08:37:25 <JohnArwe> Currently labeled "at risk"

Currently labeled "at risk"

08:37:48 <JohnArwe> Roger objects to dropping w/o more discussion.

Roger objects to dropping w/o more discussion.

08:38:06 <JohnArwe> http://piratepad.net/ge4VKecQWa

http://piratepad.net/ge4VKecQWa

08:38:54 <AndyS> That's where I am ... this is being developed for a need we have but I'm more than happy to work in LDP on it.

Andy Seaborne: That's where I am ... this is being developed for a need we have but I'm more than happy to work in LDP on it.

08:39:31 <Ashok> ok ... I think It's important, that's why I'm asking

Ashok Malhotra: ok ... I think It's important, that's why I'm asking

08:40:25 <AndyS> Great - let me know what the WG thinks after the F2F discussions.

Andy Seaborne: Great - let me know what the WG thinks after the F2F discussions.

08:41:38 <JohnArwe> issue-62?

ISSUE-62?

08:41:38 <trackbot> ISSUE-62 -- Creating containers associated with LDPRs -- open

Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-62 -- Creating containers associated with LDPRs -- open

08:41:38 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/62

Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/62

08:44:48 <JohnArwe> SteveS: application can do that outside of LDP

Steve Speicher: application can do that outside of LDP

08:45:12 <JohnArwe> Arnaud: spec as it is today allows several ways... enumerates

Arnaud Le Hors: spec as it is today allows several ways... enumerates

08:45:23 <JohnArwe> ...App level, as SteveS said

...App level, as SteveS said

08:45:34 <JohnArwe> ...PUT to create the container

...PUT to create the container

08:45:57 <JohnArwe> Arnaud: natural for people to read spec and ask how the starting point came to be.

Arnaud Le Hors: natural for people to read spec and ask how the starting point came to be.

08:46:24 <JohnArwe> bblfish: the top level "off the screen" resource could be a container itself.

Henry Story: the top level "off the screen" resource could be a container itself.

08:46:46 <JohnArwe> roger: my assumption is that the starting point is a just an LDPR, not necessarily an LDPC

Roger Menday: my assumption is that the starting point is a just an LDPR, not necessarily an LDPC

08:47:14 <JohnArwe> pasting example from pirate pad area for minutes...

pasting example from pirate pad area for minutes...

08:47:25 <JohnArwe> Starting with

Starting with

08:47:25 <JohnArwe> <>

<>

08:47:25 <JohnArwe>    a o:NetWorth ;

a o:NetWorth ;

08:47:25 <JohnArwe>    o:netWorthOf <http://example.org/users/JohnZSmith>;\

o:netWorthOf <http://example.org/users/JohnZSmith>;\

08:47:25 <JohnArwe> ... which doesn't have the liabilities and assets containers :(

... which doesn't have the liabilities and assets containers :(

08:47:34 <JohnArwe> If I want a way to create liabilities and assets, I need a way to make some LDPCs

If I want a way to create liabilities and assets, I need a way to make some LDPCs

08:47:34 <JohnArwe> <>

<>

08:47:34 <JohnArwe>    a o:NetWorth, ldp:Container;

a o:NetWorth, ldp:Container;

08:47:34 <JohnArwe>    o:netWorthOf <http://example.org/users/JohnZSmith>;

o:netWorthOf <http://example.org/users/JohnZSmith>;

08:47:34 <JohnArwe>    ldp:membershipSubject <>;

ldp:membershipSubject <>;

08:47:34 <JohnArwe>    ldp:membershipPredicate ldp:has_ldpc.

ldp:membershipPredicate ldp:has_ldpc.

08:47:44 <JohnArwe> Now after POSTing the following to <>

Now after POSTing the following to <>

08:47:44 <JohnArwe>    a ldp:Container;

a ldp:Container;

08:47:44 <JohnArwe>    ldp:membershipSubject <.>;

ldp:membershipSubject <.>;

08:47:44 <JohnArwe>    ldp:membershipPredicate o:asset.

ldp:membershipPredicate o:asset.

08:47:55 <JohnArwe> Now he gets

Now he gets

08:47:56 <JohnArwe> <>

<>

08:47:56 <JohnArwe>    a o:NetWorth, ldp:Container;

a o:NetWorth, ldp:Container;

08:47:56 <JohnArwe>    o:netWorthOf <http://example.org/users/JohnZSmith>;

o:netWorthOf <http://example.org/users/JohnZSmith>;

08:47:56 <JohnArwe>    ldp:membershipSubject <.>;

ldp:membershipSubject <.>;

08:47:56 <JohnArwe>    ldp:membershipPredicate ldp:has_ldpc;

ldp:membershipPredicate ldp:has_ldpc;

08:47:56 <JohnArwe>    ldp:has_ldpc <assetContainer/>

ldp:has_ldpc <assetContainer/>

08:47:56 <JohnArwe> <assetContainer/>

<assetContainer/>

08:47:57 <JohnArwe>    a ldp:Container;

a ldp:Container;

08:47:57 <JohnArwe>    ldp:membershipSubject <.>;

ldp:membershipSubject <.>;

08:47:57 <JohnArwe>    ldp:membershipPredicate o:asset.

ldp:membershipPredicate o:asset.

08:48:18 <JohnArwe> comparing to ex 3 in LDP spec

comparing to ex 3 in LDP spec

08:49:59 <bblfish> hi

Henry Story: hi

08:50:14 <JohnArwe> Arnaud: what is the issue then?

Arnaud Le Hors: what is the issue then?

08:52:23 <JohnArwe> Roger: not saying its the best solution, but once you create from the LDPR I get an answer for the other issue I gave up on (links from LDPRs to the containers they use to manage sets of domain-specific links)

Roger Menday: not saying its the best solution, but once you create from the LDPR I get an answer for the other issue I gave up on (links from LDPRs to the containers they use to manage sets of domain-specific links)

08:54:25 <JohnArwe> SteveS: the RDF links in the membership triples do contain the information, although the links are in the opposite direction. if the server returns the container's triples (including membership triples) along with the LDPR's representation, you have what you need.

Steve Speicher: the RDF links in the membership triples do contain the information, although the links are in the opposite direction. if the server returns the container's triples (including membership triples) along with the LDPR's representation, you have what you need.

08:54:51 <JohnArwe> Arnaud: are you convinced the spec itself has no gap?  perhaps we do need deployment info.

Arnaud Le Hors: are you convinced the spec itself has no gap? perhaps we do need deployment info.

08:55:43 <JohnArwe> steves: (1) uber container that server stitches together (2) morph LDPR into container ...server has to allow that (3) PUT-create as you showed in pad.  Spec allows all of those today.

Steve Speicher: (1) uber container that server stitches together (2) morph LDPR into container ...server has to allow that (3) PUT-create as you showed in pad. Spec allows all of those today.

08:56:18 <JohnArwe> Arnaud: if this is about how elegant the solutions are vs their feasibility, we could also put it on the wish list

Arnaud Le Hors: if this is about how elegant the solutions are vs their feasibility, we could also put it on the wish list

08:56:46 <JohnArwe> ...appear to have consensus in the room that primer/guidelines should clarify this set of possibilities

...appear to have consensus in the room that primer/guidelines should clarify this set of possibilities

08:58:20 <JohnArwe> Roger: 4th possibility is templatization ... LDPR links to template containers with no URLs, and to another resource that exists and is capable of instantiating templates.... that is what we did pre-LDP

Roger Menday: 4th possibility is templatization ... LDPR links to template containers with no URLs, and to another resource that exists and is capable of instantiating templates.... that is what we did pre-LDP

08:58:34 <JohnArwe> ... if looking to close this issue, pls action deployment guid

... if looking to close this issue, pls action deployment guid

08:59:46 <JohnArwe> Proposal from Arnaud: close issue-62 by updating the best practices or primer or deployment guide to enumerate what the spec allows for solving this

Proposal from Arnaud: close ISSUE-62 by updating the best practices or primer or deployment guide to enumerate what the spec allows for solving this

08:59:55 <mielvds> +1

Miel Vander Sande: +1

08:59:58 <JohnArwe> ...e.g. as shown in (1)-(3) above

...e.g. as shown in (1)-(3) above

09:00:02 <rgarcia> +1

Raúl García Castro: +1

09:00:04 <nmihindu> +1

Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: +1

09:00:06 <bblfish> +1

Henry Story: +1

09:00:07 <SteveS> +1

Steve Speicher: +1

09:00:08 <roger> +1

Roger Menday: +1

09:00:12 <krp> +1

Kevin Page: +1

09:00:56 <Arnaud> Resolved: Close issue-62 by updating the best practices or primer or deployment guide to enumerate what the spec allows for solving this

RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-62 by updating the best practices or primer or deployment guide to enumerate what the spec allows for solving this

09:01:56 <Zakim> SW_LDP(F2F)2:30AM has now started

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

09:01:57 <bblfish> Issue-51?

Henry Story: ISSUE-51?

09:01:57 <trackbot> ISSUE-51 -- Linking from a Resource to its Containers (not the containers the resource is in) -- open

Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-51 -- Linking from a Resource to its Containers (not the containers the resource is in) -- open

09:01:57 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/51

Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/51

09:01:57 <JohnArwe> subTopic: Issue-51

2.6. ISSUE-51

09:02:03 <Zakim> +[GVoice]

Zakim IRC Bot: +[GVoice]

09:02:25 <bblfish> q+

Henry Story: q+

09:02:35 <JohnArwe> coming ericp

coming ericp

09:03:00 <JohnArwe> people here admiring your enthusiasm (or insomnia)

people here admiring your enthusiasm (or insomnia)

09:03:04 <SteveS> You can get the relation today, using the example from before as: <assetContainer/> ldp:membershipSubject <.>.

Steve Speicher: You can get the relation today, using the example from before as: <assetContainer/> ldp:membershipSubject <.>.

09:03:13 <Zakim> +m

Zakim IRC Bot: +m

09:03:18 <bblfish> q?

Henry Story: q?

09:03:47 <rgarcia> ericP, we just called

Raúl García Castro: ericP, we just called

09:04:21 <bblfish> <> a ldp:Container;  ldp:created <child/> . <child/> a ldp:Container .

Henry Story: <> a ldp:Container; ldp:created <child/> . <child/> a ldp:Container .

09:04:37 <SteveS> q+

Steve Speicher: q+

09:04:46 <SteveS> ack bblfish

Steve Speicher: ack bblfish

09:05:28 <roger> @SteveS, does a child know who it's parent is, or is it a parent who knows who it's child is ?

Roger Menday: @SteveS, does a child know who it's parent is, or is it a parent who knows who it's child is ?

09:05:42 <JohnArwe> bblfish: is that it?  roger: no (no, no, no, no)

Henry Story: is that it? roger: no (no, no, no, no)

09:06:49 <bblfish> Ah, I missed this notion of { <.> ldp:hasContainer <assetContainer>. }

Henry Story: Ah, I missed this notion of { <.> ldp:hasContainer <assetContainer>. }

09:07:19 <bblfish> q+

Henry Story: q+

09:07:20 <JohnArwe> Roger: I was looking for < LDPR , ... , LDPR's container > but see now that same info exists with subj/obj swapped

Roger Menday: I was looking for < LDPR , ... , LDPR's container > but see now that same info exists with subj/obj swapped

09:07:25 <Arnaud> ack steves

Arnaud Le Hors: ack steves

09:10:00 <JohnArwe> Discussion about separation of "interaction-related" triples and "domain triples", which people prefer/loathe to varying degrees based on mental models.

Discussion about separation of "interaction-related" triples and "domain triples", which people prefer/loathe to varying degrees based on mental models.

09:10:25 <JohnArwe> Roger mentions the evil blank-node word.  scribe ducks.

Roger mentions the evil blank-node word. scribe ducks.

09:11:05 <JohnArwe> Henry: use ldp:contains, that's the right answer

Henry Story: use ldp:contains, that's the right answer

09:11:22 <JohnArwe> Arnaud separates the combatants

Arnaud separates the combatants

09:17:44 <JohnArwe> Roger reminds people that he's thought LDPRs were on top since before Christmas, and this shows through in his examples from back then, although did not expect anyone to support such a change.

(No events recorded for 6 minutes)

Roger reminds people that he's thought LDPRs were on top since before Christmas, and this shows through in his examples from back then, although did not expect anyone to support such a change.

09:18:11 <JohnArwe> ...Henry and Miel see how that could work, and might even in a perfect world be preferable.

...Henry and Miel see how that could work, and might even in a perfect world be preferable.

09:19:22 <bblfish> q?

Henry Story: q?

09:19:22 <JohnArwe> Roger: Containers are very constrained, cannot add just any properties.  Mass confusion and shouts of "what about non-member properties then" from the crowd; constraint on contrainers is there's only one membership triple pattern.

Roger Menday: Containers are very constrained, cannot add just any properties. Mass confusion and shouts of "what about non-member properties then" from the crowd; constraint on contrainers is there's only one membership triple pattern.

09:19:27 <SteveS> q+

Steve Speicher: q+

09:20:01 <JohnArwe> Roger: we had 'value set' at F2F2, never really took hold

Roger Menday: we had 'value set' at F2F2, never really took hold

09:20:16 <JohnArwe> many respond with 'that's just a naming problem'

many respond with 'that's just a naming problem'

09:20:30 <SteveS> ack bblfish

Steve Speicher: ack bblfish

09:20:39 <JohnArwe> Henry: containers are just about creating members, and when you do that other relations get added elsewhere

Henry Story: containers are just about creating members, and when you do that other relations get added elsewhere

09:20:50 <JohnArwe> Roger: disagree with that strongly

Roger Menday: disagree with that strongly

09:20:57 <Arnaud> ack steves

Arnaud Le Hors: ack steves

09:21:00 <JohnArwe> ...several others chime in

...several others chime in

09:21:37 <JohnArwe> ...we have had the "are containers [just] about create, or about listing membership" several times already at this F2F

...we have had the "are containers [just] about create, or about listing membership" several times already at this F2F

09:22:14 <JohnArwe> Arnaud: so can we close the issue?

Arnaud Le Hors: so can we close the issue?

09:22:39 <bblfish> I said Containers are very simple at its core: they just create resources ( and describe metadata on the created resources or on in the future restrictions on the container, as well as perhaps how creating a resource creates a relation to something else )

Henry Story: I said Containers are very simple at its core: they just create resources ( and describe metadata on the created resources or on in the future restrictions on the container, as well as perhaps how creating a resource creates a relation to something else )

09:22:40 <JohnArwe> Roger: we spend a half hour?  I expected it to take 2 mins.  [laughing]  I was ready to close it before.

Roger Menday: we spend a half hour? I expected it to take 2 mins. [laughing] I was ready to close it before.

09:24:15 <SteveS> informative part of spec says: "…few simple non-member properties are retrieved. In real world situations more complex cases are likely, such as those that add other predicates to containers, for example providing validation information and associating SPARQL endpoints. [SPARQL-QUERY]"

Steve Speicher: informative part of spec says: "…few simple non-member properties are retrieved. In real world situations more complex cases are likely, such as those that add other predicates to containers, for example providing validation information and associating SPARQL endpoints. [SPARQL-QUERY]"

09:25:06 <JohnArwe> Proposal: Close issue-51 without normative changes to specification.  Editors may make informative changes to text around containers, and may (assume we do) need more info in companion documents.  Need to clarify that containers can be bigger than the minimum we describe, so you can do other things; e.g. you can have an LDPR that is also an LDPC.

PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-51 without normative changes to specification. Editors may make informative changes to text around containers, and may (assume we do) need more info in companion documents. Need to clarify that containers can be bigger than the minimum we describe, so you can do other things; e.g. you can have an LDPR that is also an LDPC.

09:25:37 <bblfish> background talk: an ldlc is a controller

Cody Burleson: an LDPC is a controller [ Scribe Assist by Henry Story ]

09:25:46 <JohnArwe> s/ldlc/LDPC/
09:26:19 <nmihindu> s/background talk/cody
09:26:56 <SteveS> +1

Steve Speicher: +1

09:27:01 <rgarcia> +1

Raúl García Castro: +1

09:27:02 <nmihindu> +1

Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: +1

09:27:02 <krp> +1

Kevin Page: +1

09:27:04 <roger> +1

Roger Menday: +1

09:27:05 <mesteban> +1

Miguel Esteban Gutiérrez: +1

09:27:10 <Ashok> +1

Ashok Malhotra: +1

09:27:19 <JohnArwe> editors happy to accept citations of sections where readers might be likely to read too narrowly.

editors happy to accept citations of sections where readers might be likely to read too narrowly.

09:27:37 <bblfish> +1

Henry Story: +1

09:27:43 <Arnaud> Resolved: Close issue-51 without normative changes to specification.  Editors may make informative changes to text around containers, and may (assume we do) need more info in companion documents.  Need to clarify that containers can be bigger than the minimum we describe, so you can do other things; e.g. you can have an LDPR that is also an LDPC.

RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-51 without normative changes to specification. Editors may make informative changes to text around containers, and may (assume we do) need more info in companion documents. Need to clarify that containers can be bigger than the minimum we describe, so you can do other things; e.g. you can have an LDPR that is also an LDPC.

09:27:47 <mielvds> +1

Miel Vander Sande: +1

09:28:48 <cody> I need to get my group photo before people start breaking for airport.

Cody Burleson: I need to get my group photo before people start breaking for airport.

09:28:54 <JohnArwe> @steveb: ashok suggests you look at issues closed yesterday, one of your loved ones was in there.

@steveb: ashok suggests you look at issues closed yesterday, one of your loved ones was in there.

09:29:00 <Ashok> stevebattle are you on the phone?

Ashok Malhotra: stevebattle are you on the phone?

09:29:20 <JohnArwe> ...the minutes are available already, although arnaud might not have finished polish-editing them

...the minutes are available already, although arnaud might not have finished polish-editing them

09:29:26 <JohnArwe> subTopic: Issue-50

2.7. ISSUE-50

09:29:29 <JohnArwe> issue-50?

ISSUE-50?

09:29:29 <trackbot> ISSUE-50 -- Intuitive Containers: better support for relative URIs -- open

Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-50 -- Intuitive Containers: better support for relative URIs -- open

09:29:29 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/50

Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/50

09:30:09 <JohnArwe> bblfish: you can use relative URIs in POST, but cannot use others like . and .. because you don't know the path the server will choose

Henry Story: you can use relative URIs in POST, but cannot use others like . and .. because you don't know the path the server will choose

09:32:38 <roger> i think this cannot be in the spec, but, why not something for the deployment guide ?

Roger Menday: i think this cannot be in the spec, but, why not something for the deployment guide ?

09:33:02 <Ashok> q+

Ashok Malhotra: q+

09:33:11 <JohnArwe> ...suggesting adding subclass whose server-chosen URI will be the container's URI, a slash (if not present on the container's URI), and then a single URI path segment (as defined in RFC 3986), full stop.

...suggesting adding subclass whose server-chosen URI will be the container's URI, a slash (if not present on the container's URI), and then a single URI path segment (as defined in RFC 3986), full stop.

09:33:21 <roger> +q

Roger Menday: +q

09:33:39 <krp> http://piratepad.net/ge4VKecQWa

Kevin Page: http://piratepad.net/ge4VKecQWa

09:33:49 <JohnArwe> @roger, spec allows a server to behave that way but LDP gives no way for a server to communicate that intent

@roger, spec allows a server to behave that way but LDP gives no way for a server to communicate that intent

09:34:13 <roger> that why it is guideline only !

Roger Menday: that why it is guideline only !

09:34:38 <JohnArwe> @roger: not disagreeing, just clarifying what spec-as-it-stands permits

@roger: not disagreeing, just clarifying what spec-as-it-stands permits

09:34:41 <Arnaud> ack roger

Arnaud Le Hors: ack roger

09:35:05 <JohnArwe> Personally, I'm allergic to adding any hard constraints on how servers construct URIs

Personally, I'm allergic to adding any hard constraints on how servers construct URIs

09:35:37 <JohnArwe> Roger: do see use in this, just think it's guidelines not normative

Roger Menday: do see use in this, just think it's guidelines not normative

09:36:10 <Arnaud> ack ashok

Arnaud Le Hors: ack ashok

09:36:24 <JohnArwe> Ashok: what is base URI for these relative URIs?

Ashok Malhotra: what is base URI for these relative URIs?

09:37:17 <SteveS> See new spec section: "5.4.8.1 For RDF representations, LDPC servers must assign the base-URI for [RFC3987] relative-URI resolution to be the URI of the created subject resource."

Steve Speicher: See new spec section: "5.4.8.1 For RDF representations, LDPC servers must assign the base-URI for [RFC3987] relative-URI resolution to be the URI of the created subject resource."

09:38:13 <krp> q+

Kevin Page: q+

09:38:50 <roger> +q

Roger Menday: +q

09:38:54 <JohnArwe> bblfish: all relative to the document/resource created.  the problem is that LDP allows the newly created resource's uri to be anything (including on another server).  I want it to be within this container, so that if a client uses the .. notation in the input the results are fully predictable.

Henry Story: all relative to the document/resource created. the problem is that LDP allows the newly created resource's uri to be anything (including on another server). I want it to be within this container, so that if a client uses the .. notation in the input the results are fully predictable.

09:39:30 <JohnArwe> kevin: good impln choice, in guidelines.

Kevin Page: good impln choice, in guidelines.

09:39:50 <JohnArwe> bblfish: that's why I want a subclass

Henry Story: that's why I want a subclass

09:40:30 <JohnArwe> kevin: so why isn't that uri convention subclass something in your namespace?

Kevin Page: so why isn't that uri convention subclass something in your namespace?

09:40:53 <JohnArwe> bblfish: idea is very simple, subclass adds this convention.

Henry Story: idea is very simple, subclass adds this convention.

09:41:10 <Arnaud> ack krp

Arnaud Le Hors: ack krp

09:41:14 <JohnArwe> kevin: you're talking about specifying this convention in the spec however

Kevin Page: you're talking about specifying this convention in the spec however

09:41:51 <JohnArwe> roger: how does this work with membership triples in the general case?

Roger Menday: how does this work with membership triples in the general case?

09:42:04 <Arnaud> ack roger

Arnaud Le Hors: ack roger

09:42:13 <JohnArwe> bblfish: same way; relative uri would be different

Henry Story: same way; relative uri would be different

09:43:15 <JohnArwe> ... you make a good point; many of the current examples assume you allocate URIs this way

... you make a good point; many of the current examples assume you allocate URIs this way

09:43:44 <JohnArwe> others point out that spec only uses . when creating resources

others point out that spec only uses . when creating resources

09:44:17 <SteveS> What would a server do with:

Steve Speicher: What would a server do with:

09:44:26 <JohnArwe> bblfish: you cannot use . on create to speak about your container if you assume the URIs can be fully arbitrary

Henry Story: you cannot use . on create to speak about your container if you assume the URIs can be fully arbitrary

09:44:37 <SteveS> POST with a Slug of foo/bar/abc

Steve Speicher: POST with a Slug of foo/bar/abc

09:45:47 <JohnArwe> nandana: not disputing it's a requirement, but you do have workaround already.  you can add the triples you need after create finished and the resource's URI is known

Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: not disputing it's a requirement, but you do have workaround already. you can add the triples you need after create finished and the resource's URI is known

09:46:10 <Zakim> +Sandro

Zakim IRC Bot: +Sandro

09:47:10 <nmihindu> relative uri patterns - http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1808.txt

Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: relative uri patterns - http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1808.txt

09:47:18 <JohnArwe> Sandro, not sure if you're a 3986 weenie in particular, if so you joined in the middle of a spirited discussion of issue 50

Sandro, not sure if you're a 3986 weenie in particular, if so you joined in the middle of a spirited discussion of ISSUE-50

09:48:04 <JohnArwe> careful nandana - 1808 superseded by 3986

careful nandana - 1808 superseded by 3986

09:48:06 <SteveS> q+

Steve Speicher: q+

09:48:29 <Arnaud> ack steves

Arnaud Le Hors: ack steves

09:48:34 <nmihindu> JohnArwe, yeah. Just noticed your link. My rfc searches are not so good apparently :)

Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: JohnArwe, yeah. Just noticed your link. My rfc searches are not so good apparently :)

09:48:38 <JohnArwe> Arnaud: not a gap in the spec; personally do not see new class being worthwhile.

Arnaud Le Hors: not a gap in the spec; personally do not see new class being worthwhile.

09:49:26 <JohnArwe> steves: could we fix this with more guidance on how servers process slug?  or would we need one?

Steve Speicher: could we fix this with more guidance on how servers process slug? or would we need one?

09:49:38 <JohnArwe> bblfish: the slug value could not contain /s

Henry Story: the slug value could not contain /s

09:50:08 <JohnArwe> steves: see usefulness, kind of late, have the workaround nandana pointed out so "not now" is my preference

Steve Speicher: see usefulness, kind of late, have the workaround nandana pointed out so "not now" is my preference

09:50:26 <JohnArwe> Arnaud: add to wish list while bblfish gets more impln experience?

Arnaud Le Hors: add to wish list while bblfish gets more impln experience?

09:50:54 <JohnArwe> bblfish: can we add it to ontology now so the URL is stable?

Henry Story: can we add it to ontology now so the URL is stable?

09:51:12 <JohnArwe> steves: would have to mark it unstable

Steve Speicher: would have to mark it unstable

09:51:19 <JohnArwe> bblfish: ok with unstable

Henry Story: ok with unstable

09:52:26 <JohnArwe> ashok: would this new kind of container only allow creates via post?

Ashok Malhotra: would this new kind of container only allow creates via post?

09:53:01 <JohnArwe> John clarifies: POST narrorwly, or also PUT/PATCH-create?  Ashok: all 3

John clarifies: POST narrorwly, or also PUT/PATCH-create? Ashok: all 3

09:53:34 <JohnArwe> discussion - somewhat uneasy reserving name, creates expectation wg will deliver on it someday when we might not

discussion - somewhat uneasy reserving name, creates expectation wg will deliver on it someday when we might not

09:54:20 <JohnArwe> Proposal: close issue-50 without change to normative spec, editors to check examples to any untoward use of relative uris, and companion documents to discuss this common pattern for allocating URIs

PROPOSED: close ISSUE-50 without change to normative spec, editors to check examples to find any untoward use of relative uris, and companion documents to discuss this common pattern for allocating URIs

09:54:37 <bblfish> +1

Henry Story: +1

09:54:38 <JohnArwe> s/to any/to find any/
09:54:38 <krp> +1

Kevin Page: +1

09:54:41 <cody> +1

Cody Burleson: +1

09:54:43 <roger> +1

Roger Menday: +1

09:54:44 <rgarcia> +1

Raúl García Castro: +1

09:54:45 <SteveS> +1

Steve Speicher: +1

09:54:46 <mesteban> +1

Miguel Esteban Gutiérrez: +1

09:54:46 <ericP> +1

Eric Prud'hommeaux: +1

09:54:47 <JohnArwe> +1

+1

09:54:50 <nmihindu> +1

Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: +1

09:54:52 <mielvds> +1

Miel Vander Sande: +1

09:54:54 <Arnaud> Resolved: Close issue-50 without change to normative spec, editors to check examples to any untoward use of relative uris, and companion documents to discuss this common pattern for allocating URIs

RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-50 without change to normative spec, editors to check examples to any untoward use of relative uris, and companion documents to discuss this common pattern for allocating URIs

09:55:34 <roger> so maybe, the LDPC is the controller, the LDPR is the view, and graph on the server is the model ?

Roger Menday: so maybe, the LDPC is the controller, the LDPR is the view, and graph on the server is the model ?

09:55:41 <bblfish> q?

Henry Story: q?

09:55:43 <JohnArwe> subTopic: Issue-78

2.8. ISSUE-78

09:55:46 <JohnArwe> issue-78?

ISSUE-78?

09:55:46 <trackbot> ISSUE-78 -- inferencing levels -- open

Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-78 -- inferencing levels -- open

09:55:46 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/78

Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/78

09:56:34 <bblfish>  ldp:membershipPredicate [ owl:inverseInverseOF foaf:loves ]

Henry Story: ldp:membershipPredicate [ owl:inverseInverseOF foaf:loves ]

09:56:45 <bblfish> <> ldp:membershipPredicate [ owl:inverseInverseOF foaf:loves ]

Henry Story: <> ldp:membershipPredicate [ owl:inverseInverseOF foaf:loves ]

09:56:53 <JohnArwe> bblfish: if you wanted to say [what bblfish posted above]

Henry Story: if you wanted to say [what bblfish posted above]

09:57:13 <ericP> the reason we don't use the OWL idiom for inverseMembershipPredicate is 'cause we're wusses and afraid to use the word "OWL"

Eric Prud'hommeaux: the reason we don't use the OWL idiom for inverseMembershipPredicate is 'cause we're wusses and afraid to use the word "OWL"

09:57:43 <JohnArwe> bblfish: people reacted to that by saying "ick that drags OWL" and then Sir Robin soiled his armor

Henry Story: people reacted to that by saying "ick that drags OWL" and then Sir Robin soiled his armor

09:58:41 <JohnArwe> eric: slightly more parsing but would still be using standard terms

Eric Prud'hommeaux: slightly more parsing but would still be using standard terms

09:59:33 <JohnArwe> bblfish: intelligent clients can do as much inferencing as they want, question is how much to we require?

Henry Story: intelligent clients can do as much inferencing as they want, question is how much to we require?

10:01:08 <JohnArwe> arnaud: explains background ... members have been saying we don't want to require any reasonsers; bblfish feels that membershipPredicate etc is just a form of inferencing, not all members agree (in the sense that it's not requiring RDF/OWL reasoning)

Arnaud Le Hors: explains background ... members have been saying we don't want to require any reasonsers; bblfish feels that membershipPredicate etc is just a form of inferencing, not all members agree (in the sense that it's not requiring RDF/OWL reasoning)

10:02:26 <JohnArwe> ericp: do we need text = this document includes/defines a number of predicates/terms, and every client/server interaction should directly include those triples instead of relying on clients implementing inferencing to derive some of the triples from representations.

Eric Prud'hommeaux: do we need text = this document includes/defines a number of predicates/terms, and every client/server interaction should directly include those triples instead of relying on clients implementing inferencing to derive some of the triples from representations.

10:03:17 <JohnArwe> ... i.e. no inferencing required to get at data in the payload that's mentioned in the LDP spec.

... i.e. no inferencing required to get at data in the payload that's mentioned in the LDP spec.

10:05:12 <JohnArwe> ...it's fine if implementations want to use RDFS in "their" portions of the payloads, just not required to interpret the LDP portions

...it's fine if implementations want to use RDFS in "their" portions of the payloads, just not required to interpret the LDP portions

10:06:02 <JohnArwe> discussion of whether this is requirement or best practice ... unanimous(?) consensus that it's a normative reqt for client interop

discussion of whether this is requirement or best practice ... unanimous(?) consensus that it's a normative reqt for client interop

10:06:39 <JohnArwe> kevin notes that having text in spec does not prevent us from also having text in informative companion docs

kevin notes that having text in spec does not prevent us from also having text in informative companion docs

10:08:17 <ericP> PROPOSED: close issue-38 with normative text like "separating the payload into an LDP-specified part and an application part, the LDP-specific part of LDP messages MUST NOT require inference."

PROPOSED: close ISSUE-38 with normative text like "separating the payload into an LDP-specified part and an application part, the LDP-specific part of LDP messages MUST NOT require inference."

10:08:34 <ericP> PROPOSED: close issue-78 with normative text like "separating the payload into an LDP-specified part and an application part, the LDP-specific part of LDP messages MUST NOT require inference."

PROPOSED: close ISSUE-78 with normative text like "separating the payload into an LDP-specified part and an application part, the LDP-specific part of LDP messages MUST NOT require inference."

10:08:45 <rgarcia> +1

Raúl García Castro: +1

10:08:49 <SteveS> +1

Steve Speicher: +1

10:08:50 <ericP> +1

Eric Prud'hommeaux: +1

10:08:53 <JohnArwe> +1

+1

10:08:54 <nmihindu> +1

Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: +1

10:09:05 <bblfish> +1 "must not require inferencing on the client for the protocol to work successfully"

Henry Story: +1 "must not require inferencing on the client for the protocol to work successfully"

10:09:11 <roger> +1

Roger Menday: +1

10:09:18 <mesteban> +1

Miguel Esteban Gutiérrez: +1

10:09:51 <cody> +1

Cody Burleson: +1

10:10:12 <Arnaud> Resolved: Close Issue-78 with normative text like "separating the payload into an LDP-specified part and an application part, the LDP-specific part of LDP messages MUST NOT require inference."

RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-78 with normative text like "separating the payload into an LDP-specified part and an application part, the LDP-specific part of LDP messages MUST NOT require inference."

10:10:48 <mielvds> +1 (showing support anyway, ha)

Miel Vander Sande: +1 (showing support anyway, ha)

10:10:56 <krp> +1

Kevin Page: +1

10:12:00 <Zakim> +SteveBattle

Zakim IRC Bot: +SteveBattle

10:14:25 <JohnArwe> subTopic: issue-71

2.9. ISSUE-71

10:14:29 <JohnArwe> issue-71?

ISSUE-71?

10:14:29 <trackbot> ISSUE-71 -- No membershipSubject or membershipPredicate -- open

Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-71 -- No membershipSubject or membershipPredicate -- open

10:14:29 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/71

Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/71

10:15:23 <JohnArwe> pause for group picture

pause for group picture

10:16:06 <JohnArwe> pardon, we're figuring out how many engineers it takes to take 1 group photo

pardon, we're figuring out how many engineers it takes to take 1 group photo

10:17:07 <JohnArwe> kevin leaves for the day

kevin leaves for the day

10:17:26 <JohnArwe> bblfish: back to piratepad for example to get feedback

Henry Story: back to piratepad for example to get feedback

10:19:16 <JohnArwe> ... basic idea is to wrap membershipXXX predicates in a blank node, to allow >1 such relation in the future

... basic idea is to wrap membershipXXX predicates in a blank node, to allow >1 such relation in the future

10:21:23 <JohnArwe> ...i.e. to do that now in LDP, rather than (in the future when someone wants >1 relation) having one syntax for the first one and a different syntax for subsequent ones; you'd need a different syntax, like a blank node to wrap the membershipXXX relations since they occur in pairs/triples

...i.e. to do that now in LDP, rather than (in the future when someone wants >1 relation) having one syntax for the first one and a different syntax for subsequent ones; you'd need a different syntax, like a blank node to wrap the membershipXXX relations since they occur in pairs/triples

10:21:49 <JohnArwe> for example (snapshot from pirate pad)

for example (snapshot from pirate pad)

10:21:50 <JohnArwe> <> a ldp:Container;

<> a ldp:Container;

10:21:50 <JohnArwe>     ldp:rel [ ldp:membershipPredicate foaf:knows;

ldp:rel [ ldp:membershipPredicate foaf:knows;

10:21:50 <JohnArwe>                 ldp:membershipSubject <#wife>;

ldp:membershipSubject <#wife>;

10:21:50 <JohnArwe>                 ldp:membershipObject foaf:primaryTopic ],

ldp:membershipObject foaf:primaryTopic ],

10:21:50 <JohnArwe>               [ ldp:membershipPredicate foaf:knows;

[ ldp:membershipPredicate foaf:knows;

10:21:50 <JohnArwe>                 ldp:membershipSubject <#me>;

ldp:membershipSubject <#me>;

10:21:50 <JohnArwe>                 ldp:membershipObject foaf:primaryTopic ] .

ldp:membershipObject foaf:primaryTopic ] .

10:23:38 <JohnArwe> bblfish: this might also solve the [already closed, after yesterday] monotonicity problem in a different way

Henry Story: this might also solve the [already closed, after yesterday] monotonicity problem in a different way

10:23:40 <stevebattle4> Is Henry's argument one of reductio ad absurdum? - ie. this is so silly we should do away with it entirely - I can't gauge the level of irony remotely.

Steve Battle: Is Henry's argument one of reductio ad absurdum? - ie. this is so silly we should do away with it entirely - I can't gauge the level of irony remotely.

10:23:56 <JohnArwe> no irony that I can detect

no irony that I can detect

10:24:34 <JohnArwe> my sense is that he's pursuing a single common syntax for >=1

my sense is that he's pursuing a single common syntax for >=1

10:25:07 <JohnArwe> q+ roger

q+ roger

10:26:41 <nmihindu> JohnArwe, it seems so. It is more generic and extensible. It would be nice to see what are the use cases for this.

Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: JohnArwe, it seems so. It is more generic and extensible. It would be nice to see what are the use cases for this.

10:27:44 <Arnaud> ack roger

Arnaud Le Hors: ack roger

10:27:52 <nmihindu> q+

Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: q+

10:28:09 <JohnArwe> raul: ...lost question sorry

Raúl García Castro: ...lost question sorry

10:28:26 <stevebattle4> Henry - you've convinced me we should do away with membershipXXX

Steve Battle: Henry - you've convinced me we should do away with membershipXXX

10:28:58 <JohnArwe> john: if client uses domain relations to enumerate members, would it have to union them or would either work?

John Arwe: if client uses domain relations to enumerate members, would it have to union them or would either work?

10:29:02 <Arnaud> ack nmihindu

Arnaud Le Hors: ack nmihindu

10:29:46 <SteveS> q+

Steve Speicher: q+

10:30:36 <JohnArwe> nandana: to keep track of what a container created, and these would be "other relations" outside of LDP

Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: to keep track of what a container created, and these would be "other relations" outside of LDP

10:31:25 <Arnaud> ack steves

Arnaud Le Hors: ack steves

10:31:28 <JohnArwe> bblfish: agree; notes that he feels we already have this problem now

Henry Story: agree; notes that he feels we already have this problem now

10:32:32 <JohnArwe> Steves: do not see strong need for >1 based on my impln experience.  client can always create those other relations.  someone might next make the leap to insert a template generation rule so a bunch of side effects.

Steve Speicher: do not see strong need for >1 based on my impln experience. client can always create those other relations. someone might next make the leap to insert a template generation rule so a bunch of side effects.

10:33:18 <JohnArwe> ericp: I would have written all these implications (membershipXXX) in OWL because the interactions are getting complex.

Eric Prud'hommeaux: I would have written all these implications (membershipXXX) in OWL because the interactions are getting complex.

10:33:34 <JohnArwe> bblfish: we're no more complicated than what we have today

Henry Story: this no more complicated than what we have today

10:33:45 <JohnArwe> s/we're/this/
10:34:24 <JohnArwe> ericp: what you're saying here now is that these act as conjoins (ANDs).  easy to imagine that next I want disjoints (ORs).

Eric Prud'hommeaux: what you're saying here now is that these act as conjoins (ANDs). easy to imagine that next I want disjoints (ORs).

10:34:26 <nmihindu> ericP, +1 this is providing a contract

Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: ericP, +1 this is providing a contract

10:35:03 <JohnArwe> bblfish: right, had not thought that through.  no no no, ...

Henry Story: right, had not thought that through. no no no, ...

10:35:56 <JohnArwe> ericp: one interpretation is ... another...

Eric Prud'hommeaux: one interpretation is ... another...

10:36:09 <JohnArwe> bblfish: I can see why this is confusing, bug in the on-the-fly example

Henry Story: I can see why this is confusing, bug in the on-the-fly example

10:37:23 <JohnArwe> arnaud: issue in front of us is whether or not to remove membershipXXX, not how to add more of them.  can we agree on how to deal with the issue in front of us (remove what's there or not), and assume we think through the extensions in a future version?

Arnaud Le Hors: issue in front of us is whether or not to remove membershipXXX, not how to add more of them. can we agree on how to deal with the issue in front of us (remove what's there or not), and assume we think through the extensions in a future version?

10:38:16 <JohnArwe> bblfish: this helps clarify what you're doing.  this is much more general than container membership, we spent a lot of time misunderstanding each other already.

Henry Story: this helps clarify what you're doing. this is much more general than container membership, we spent a lot of time misunderstanding each other already.

10:38:43 <JohnArwe> Arnaud: companion docs (Primer etc) should handle this, late in version 1 to add this.

Arnaud Le Hors: companion docs (Primer etc) should handle this, late in version 1 to add this.

10:38:53 <JohnArwe> bblfish: same as we have now

Henry Story: same as we have now

10:38:57 <JohnArwe> roger: does not work for me

Roger Menday: does not work for me

10:39:02 <JohnArwe> raul: concept is different

Raúl García Castro: concept is different

10:39:38 <JohnArwe> Arnaud: if you want to open a new issue [soft sobs of "no, no" heard on phone]

Arnaud Le Hors: if you want to open a new issue [soft sobs of "no, no" heard on phone]

10:40:42 <JohnArwe> bblfish: if you object to the general form and we still have membershipXXX, not especially a problem

Henry Story: if you object to the general form and we still have membershipXXX, not especially a problem

10:40:57 <Arnaud> PROPOSAL: Close Issue-71, no changes, all related issues have been closed.

PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-71, no changes, all related issues have been closed.

10:41:05 <rgarcia> +1

Raúl García Castro: +1

10:41:06 <bblfish> +1

Henry Story: +1

10:41:07 <roger> +1

Roger Menday: +1

10:41:09 <mesteban> +1

Miguel Esteban Gutiérrez: +1

10:41:09 <mielvds> +1

Miel Vander Sande: +1

10:41:15 <SteveS> +1

Steve Speicher: +1

10:41:17 <nmihindu> +1

Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: +1

10:41:19 <cody> +1

Cody Burleson: +1

10:41:20 <stevebattle4> 0 (I would cull membershipXXX)

Steve Battle: 0 (I would cull membershipXXX)

10:41:23 <JohnArwe> +1

+1

10:41:31 <Arnaud> Resolved: Close Issue-71, no changes, all related issues have been closed.

RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-71, no changes, all related issues have been closed.

10:41:37 <ericP> +1

Eric Prud'hommeaux: +1

10:41:58 <JohnArwe> subTopic: issue-58

2.10. ISSUE-58

10:42:00 <JohnArwe> issue-58?

ISSUE-58?

10:42:00 <trackbot> ISSUE-58 -- Property for asserting that complete description of members is included in LDPC representation -- open

Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-58 -- Property for asserting that complete description of members is included in LDPC representation -- open

10:42:00 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/58

Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/58

10:48:14 <Arnaud> options previously put forward: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2013May/0085.html

(No events recorded for 6 minutes)

Arnaud Le Hors: options previously put forward: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2013May/0085.html

10:48:37 <JohnArwe> re-loading of wetware caches takes a few minutes

re-loading of wetware caches takes a few minutes

10:52:01 <roger> +q

Roger Menday: +q

10:53:42 <JohnArwe> clarifying leads to info that bblfish is not objecting to the idea of avoiding the GETs, it's the form by which the examples did that.

clarifying leads to info that bblfish is not objecting to the idea of avoiding the GETs, it's the form by which the examples did that.

10:53:46 <Arnaud> ack roger

Arnaud Le Hors: ack roger

10:54:09 <JohnArwe> ericp can you recap your stmt?

ericp can you recap your stmt?

10:54:50 <nmihindu> +q to ask whether this is a best practices issue i.e. if that servers should not inline when truth changes based on that

Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: +q to ask whether this is a best practices issue i.e. if that servers should not inline when truth changes based on that

10:55:50 <Arnaud> ack nmihindu

Arnaud Le Hors: ack nmihindu

10:55:50 <Zakim> nmihindu, you wanted to ask whether this is a best practices issue i.e. if that servers should not inline when truth changes based on that

Zakim IRC Bot: nmihindu, you wanted to ask whether this is a best practices issue i.e. if that servers should not inline when truth changes based on that

10:56:32 <JohnArwe> 1 hour lunch break folks

1 hour lunch break folks

10:56:33 <Zakim> -m

Zakim IRC Bot: -m

10:56:39 <Zakim> -SteveBattle

Zakim IRC Bot: -SteveBattle

10:56:46 <Zakim> -ericP

Zakim IRC Bot: -ericP

10:56:48 <Zakim> SW_LDP(F2F)2:30AM has ended

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

10:56:48 <Zakim> Attendees were ericP, m, Sandro, SteveBattle

Zakim IRC Bot: Attendees were ericP, m, Sandro, SteveBattle

10:57:06 <roger> my question is that, in ex 3 of the spec, is the defs of the LDPC's considered as "inlining" - just to clarify.

Roger Menday: my question is that, in ex 3 of the spec, is the defs of the LDPC's considered as "inlining" - just to clarify.

10:57:16 <roger> ... for after lunch.

Roger Menday: ... for after lunch.

12:06:30 <Zakim> SW_LDP(F2F)2:30AM has now started

(No events recorded for 69 minutes)

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

12:06:37 <Zakim> +SteveBattle

Zakim IRC Bot: +SteveBattle

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

Zakim IRC Bot: +[GVoice]

12:29:43 <Zakim> +m

(No events recorded for 20 minutes)

Zakim IRC Bot: +m

12:34:09 <JohnArwe> Scribe: Miel

(Scribe set to Miel Vander Sande)

12:35:29 <mielvds> Arnaud: resume with issue 58

Arnaud Le Hors: resume with ISSUE-58

12:36:05 <mielvds> Ashok: I recommend to agree on having an indicator on the container and on each member

Ashok Malhotra: I recommend to agree on having an indicator on the container and on each member

12:36:43 <mielvds> JohnArwe: inline like in the examples is semantically broken from a semweb view

John Arwe: inline like in the examples is semantically broken from a semweb view

12:37:09 <mielvds> … henry and I discussed it over lunch, we found a way

… henry and I discussed it over lunch, we found a way

12:37:50 <mielvds> bblfish: looking at the pad. Essentially everything that does ldp:memberInlined <a1>, <a2>...

Henry Story: looking at the pad. Essentially everything that does ldp:memberInlined <a1>, <a2>...

12:38:14 <mielvds> …if a1 and a2 are somehow contradictory, this does not work

…if a1 and a2 are somehow contradictory, this does not work

12:38:43 <mielvds> second problem is that when merging information, you don't know which information came from which, unless they are disjunct

second problem is that when merging information, you don't know which information came from which, unless they are disjunct

12:39:20 <mielvds> EricP: no machine can enforce that nothing is contradictory

Eric Prud'hommeaux: no machine can enforce that nothing is contradictory

12:39:41 <mielvds> bblfish: remove memberinline and quote it

Henry Story: remove memberinline and quote it

12:40:48 <mielvds> … to the pad!

… to the pad!

12:40:51 <mielvds>  <a2> log:semantics {

<a2> log:semantics {

12:40:51 <mielvds>    <a2>

<a2>

12:40:51 <mielvds>       a o:Bond;

a o:Bond;

12:40:51 <mielvds>       o:value 20000.

o:value 20000.

12:40:51 <mielvds>  }

}

12:41:29 <nmihindu> log semantics -> http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/doc/Reach

Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: log semantics -> http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/doc/Reach

12:41:52 <mielvds> using log:semantics to quote this. client can say: I believe this and take it out

using log:semantics to quote this. client can say: I believe this and take it out

12:42:12 <mielvds> Arnaud: we don't have a syntax supporting this, so it's a showstopper

Arnaud Le Hors: we don't have a syntax supporting this, so it's a showstopper

12:42:50 <mielvds> Atom also quotes the content and adds limited metadata

Atom also quotes the content and adds limited metadata

12:43:00 <stevebattle4> q+

Steve Battle: q+

12:43:06 <mielvds> Arnaud: can you only do this by only quoting the whole content?

Arnaud Le Hors: can you only do this by only quoting the whole content?

12:43:49 <mielvds> bblfish: you create a relation ldp:content to quote everything

Henry Story: you create a relation ldp:content to quote everything

12:43:56 <Arnaud> ack steveb

Arnaud Le Hors: ack steveb

12:44:10 <ericP> q+

Eric Prud'hommeaux: q+

12:44:11 <mielvds> stevebattle4: would it be quicker to have a query parameter?

Steve Battle: would it be quicker to have a query parameter?

12:44:34 <JohnArwe> TallTed at F2F2 refused to admit anything less than member-granularity in-lining

John Arwe: TallTed at F2F2 refused to admit anything less than member-granularity in-lining

12:44:35 <Arnaud> ack eric

Arnaud Le Hors: ack eric

12:44:54 <stevebattle4> eg. http://mycontainer?inlined

Steve Battle: eg. http://mycontainer?inlined

12:45:01 <SteveS> q+

Steve Speicher: q+

12:45:19 <mielvds> EricP: the server has the best knowledge on this; if we look at a controlled system like bugtrakcing there is no issue

Eric Prud'hommeaux: the server has the best knowledge on this; if we look at a controlled system like bugtracking there is no issue

12:45:33 <mielvds> clients can tell where triples come from

clients can tell where triples come from

12:45:41 <mielvds> the issue comes up with generic triple stores

the issue comes up with generic triple stores

12:45:41 <JohnArwe> s/kcing/cking/
12:45:51 <SteveS> FYI, client requested "inlining" is on wish list http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/LDPNext#Embedded_representations

Steve Speicher: FYI, client requested "inlining" is on wish list http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/LDPNext#Embedded_representations

12:45:57 <mielvds> it can assert statements about resources that are not in its control

it can assert statements about resources that are not in its control

12:47:09 <mielvds> if you constrain the problem to risk-free cases only, we will end up with stating 'here is safe to inline', and others will be communicated with media type

if you constrain the problem to risk-free cases only, we will end up with stating 'here is safe to inline', and others will be communicated with media type

12:47:31 <mielvds> bblfish: bu example is more complex, they can contain info about other resources

Henry Story: bu example is more complex, they can contain info about other resources

12:48:01 <nmihindu> bblfish,  The thread on the turtle data type discussion on the semantic-web@w3.org might be relevant here as well http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2013May/0194.html

Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: bblfish, The thread on the turtle data type discussion on the semantic-web@w3.org might be relevant here as well http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2013May/0194.html

12:48:01 <mielvds> Arnaud: quetion I lost track of: is this application dependent question?

Arnaud Le Hors: question I lost track of: is this application dependent question?

12:48:13 <JohnArwe> s/quetion/question/
12:48:44 <mielvds> bblfish: if you get the quotation right, it will always be safe

Henry Story: if you get the quotation right, it will always be safe

12:48:50 <roger> +q

Roger Menday: +q

12:49:14 <SteveS> q-

Steve Speicher: q-

12:49:22 <Arnaud> ack steves

Arnaud Le Hors: ack steves

12:49:32 <bblfish> q?

Henry Story: q?

12:49:33 <Arnaud> ack roger

Arnaud Le Hors: ack roger

12:49:48 <mielvds> roger: I said this before: inlining is about any resource, not only containers

Roger Menday: I said this before: inlining is about any resource, not only containers

12:50:13 <mielvds> linked data community  should have some answer. We can do it for any resource

linked data community should have some answer. We can do it for any resource

12:50:17 <SteveS> q+

Steve Speicher: q+

12:50:23 <mielvds> it's a generic requirement

it's a generic requirement

12:50:44 <stevebattle4> And we might specify an inlining depth

Steve Battle: And we might specify an inlining depth

12:50:51 <stevebattle4> snap!

Steve Battle: snap!

12:50:52 <Arnaud> ack steves

Arnaud Le Hors: ack steves

12:50:53 <mielvds> Arnaud: the mapping between the rdf resources and the webresources are the problem here

Arnaud Le Hors: the mapping between the rdf resources and the webresources are the problem here

12:51:17 <JohnArwe> depth is orthogonal; nothing on the table talks about how clients request this

John Arwe: depth is orthogonal; nothing on the table talks about how clients request this

12:51:29 <ericP> there is still a large class of resources which can be safely inlined.

Eric Prud'hommeaux: there is still a large class of resources which can be safely inlined.

12:51:51 <ericP> the question is whether we want to standardize a way for them to do that or let them invent it on their own.

Eric Prud'hommeaux: the question is whether we want to standardize a way for them to do that or let them invent it on their own.

12:52:02 <JohnArwe> the question here is how the server tells clients which resources have been in-lined.  that is a flat list, regardless of how the server constructed its list.

John Arwe: the question here is how the server tells clients which resources have been in-lined. that is a flat list, regardless of how the server constructed its list.

12:52:21 <Arnaud> q?

Arnaud Le Hors: q?

12:53:05 <mielvds> bblfish: I think there is a case where inlining is wanted

Henry Story: I think there is a case where inlining is wanted

12:53:15 <roger> +q

Roger Menday: +q

12:53:28 <stevebattle4> This seems to point towards resource-centric inlining metadata, that works for both LDPC and LDPR.

Steve Battle: This seems to point towards resource-centric inlining metadata, that works for both LDPC and LDPR.

12:53:48 <mielvds> saying something about a resource defined somewhere else is important

saying something about a resource defined somewhere else is important

12:54:05 <mielvds> fully inlining however

fully inlining however

12:54:23 <mielvds> Arnaud: this does not say its about always fully inlined

Arnaud Le Hors: this does not say its about always fully inlined

12:54:37 <ericP> sandro, i think your reading is accurate and that we both understand the risks; i just think that it's worth giving folks more rope.

Eric Prud'hommeaux: sandro, i think your reading is accurate and that we both understand the risks; i just think that it's worth giving folks more rope.

12:54:53 <mielvds> bblfish: if one uses this, you need more information on the dangers

Henry Story: if one uses this, you need more information on the dangers

12:55:13 <mielvds> if you are not familiar with linked data, ..

if you are not familiar with linked data, ..

12:55:40 <JohnArwe> q+

John Arwe: q+

12:55:45 <ericP> i think people are going to invent this semantics privately anyways; we may as well provide a standard handle for it

Eric Prud'hommeaux: i think people are going to invent this semantics privately anyways; we may as well provide a standard handle for it

12:56:03 <mielvds> Arnaud: can't we have this example in the spec?

Arnaud Le Hors: can't we have this example in the spec?

12:56:10 <mielvds> example 5

example 5

12:56:48 <mielvds> Arnaud: it seems it would be reasonable to have a resolution for danger warning in best practices document

Arnaud Le Hors: it seems it would be reasonable to have a resolution for danger warning in best practices document

12:57:50 <mielvds> John: the spec could include ldp server should/must not do inlining if they meet contraints

John Arwe: the spec could include ldp server should/must not do inlining if they meet contraints

12:58:13 <mielvds> Arnaud: which normative section do we have now? => none

Arnaud Le Hors: which normative section do we have now? => none

12:58:30 <mielvds> JohnArwe: this was the proposal

John Arwe: this was the proposal

12:59:16 <mielvds> … at a minimum: "here are the problems that can arise" added to were the spec this introduces this

… at a minimum: "here are the problems that can arise" added to were the spec this introduces this

12:59:25 <Arnaud> ack roger

Arnaud Le Hors: ack roger

12:59:30 <JohnArwe> q-

John Arwe: q-

12:59:50 <mielvds> roger: pierre-antoine had a proposal that was pretty good

Roger Menday: pierre-antoine had a proposal that was pretty good

12:59:54 <ericP> JohnArwe:'s text sounds good to me

John Arwe: 's text sounds good to me [ Scribe Assist by Eric Prud'hommeaux ]

13:00:23 <mielvds> JohnArwe: I thing that's a syntax q, not a semantics q (what is the case here)

John Arwe: I thing that's a syntax q, not a semantics q (what is the case here)

13:00:43 <mielvds> roger: he had an argument contradicting this

Roger Menday: he had an argument contradicting this

13:01:12 <mielvds> … networth linking to container or inverse

… networth linking to container or inverse

13:01:18 <mielvds> are they inlined?

are they inlined?

13:01:41 <mielvds> if you are linking to the container, it makes more sens to call that inlined

if you are linking to the container, it makes more sens to call that inlined

13:02:09 <mielvds> you not inlining something you are not pointing to, because you're not pointing to it

you not inlining something you are not pointing to, because you're not pointing to it

13:02:48 <mielvds> Arnaud: to clarify, there is a more fundamental issue behind this

Arnaud Le Hors: to clarify, there is a more fundamental issue behind this

13:03:14 <mielvds> Arnaud: seperate this, let's decide on the concept of inlining

Arnaud Le Hors: separate this, let's decide on the concept of inlining

13:03:40 <mielvds> Arnaud: we can have a best practice, baware OR we can have an informative section in the spec warning people

Arnaud Le Hors: we can have a best practice, beware OR we can have an informative section in the spec warning people

13:03:56 <mielvds> sould that address bblfish concerns?

should that address bblfish concerns?

13:04:01 <JohnArwe> s/seperate/separate/
13:04:04 <ericP> simplest failure mode: <C> ldp:membershipPredicate ldp:membershipPredicate ; ldp:membershipPredicate <r1> .

Eric Prud'hommeaux: simplest failure mode: <C> ldp:membershipPredicate ldp:membershipPredicate ; ldp:membershipPredicate <r1> .

13:04:12 <JohnArwe> s/baware/beware/
13:04:17 <JohnArwe> s/sould/should/
13:04:48 <Arnaud> PROPOSAL: Add an informative section on the possible dangers of inlining resources

PROPOSED: Add an informative section on the possible dangers of inlining resources

13:04:54 <rgarcia> +1

Raúl García Castro: +1

13:04:57 <ericP> +1

Eric Prud'hommeaux: +1

13:04:58 <mielvds> +1

+1

13:05:04 <nmihindu> +1

Nandana Mihindukulasooriya: +1

13:05:05 <stevebattle4> +1

Steve Battle: +1

13:05:10 <cody> +1

Cody Burleson: +1

13:05:10 <JohnArwe> +1

John Arwe: +1

13:05:37 <roger> +1

Roger Menday: +1

13:05:50 <SteveS> +1

Steve Speicher: +1

13:05:58 <bblfish> +1

Henry Story: +1

13:06:02 <Arnaud> Resolved: Add an informative section on the possible dangers of inlining resources

RESOLVED: Add an informative section on the possible dangers of inlining resources

13:06:25 <JohnArwe> ericp's example reminds me of contests to see how much function can be included on a single source line (usually of C)

John Arwe: ericp's example reminds me of contests to see how much function can be included on a single source line (usually of C)

13:06:30 <mielvds> Arnaud: now we can go back to issue 58

Arnaud Le Hors: now we can go back to ISSUE-58

13:07:00 <ericP> JohnArwe, would you be willing to judge an obfuscated RDF contest?

Eric Prud'hommeaux: JohnArwe, would you be willing to judge an obfuscated RDF contest?

13:07:22 <mielvds> Arnaud: Do we do anything if I want to know if I got everything

Arnaud Le Hors: Do we do anything if I want to know if I got everything

13:07:34 <mielvds> Arnaud: we had several proposals

Arnaud Le Hors: we had several proposals

13:07:39 <JohnArwe> @ericp, sure, I like pain.  although I rather thought that was a large component of the last 3 elapsed-time days

John Arwe: @ericp, sure, I like pain. although I rather thought that was a large component of the last 3 elapsed-time days

13:07:56 <ericP> q

Eric Prud'hommeaux: q

13:08:52 <mielvds> Arnaud: proposal is all or nothing for all members

Arnaud Le Hors: original proposal is all or nothing for all members

13:09:47 <mielvds> JohnArwe: if we do anything with this, make it at risk, but I want it in there for scaling

John Arwe: if we do anything with this, make it at risk, but I want it in there for scaling

13:10:26 <Arnaud> s/proposal/original proposal/
13:11:16 <mielvds> ericP: we arived to the conclusion that the flag does not introduce more danger than before

Eric Prud'hommeaux: we arrived to the conclusion that the flag does not introduce more danger than before

13:11:37 <mielvds> s/arived/arrived/
13:11:56 <mielvds> roger: this is still container specific...

Roger Menday: this is still container specific...

13:12:24 <mielvds> JohnArwe: this could be a list saying: you have all the triples of these resources

John Arwe: this could be a list saying: you have all the triples of these resources

13:13:01 <Zakim> +Sandro

Zakim IRC Bot: +Sandro

13:14:49 <stevebattle4> Alternatively, you could include the eTag for an LDPR so that the client can sniff the eTag for a resource and not re-download if it has all the data already. Even an inlined resource might change and we need to re-download.

Steve Battle: Alternatively, you could include the eTag for an LDPR so that the client can sniff the eTag for a resource and not re-download if it has all the data already. Even an inlined resource might change and we need to re-download.

13:15:56 <mielvds> bblfish: it is a page saying something about this resource

Henry Story: it is a page saying something about this resource

13:16:12 <mielvds> roger: you can't know if it is inlined

Roger Menday: you can't know if it is inlined

13:16:28 <mielvds> bblfish: you can only know when you use quotation

Henry Story: you can only know when you use quotation

13:16:30 <JohnArwe> Proposal: close issue-58 to add a new predicate; ldp:fullyInlinedContentForUri, the object of which is a URI for which the response representation includes all triples in the state of the resource named by the URI.  Add a second new predicate, ldp:containerFullyInlined, domain ldp:Container, saying that all its membership triple objects' URIs have been inlined (i.e. it is a container-specific shortcut for listing each member URI using the first predicate).

PROPOSED: close ISSUE-58 to add a new predicate; ldp:fullyInlinedContentForUri, the object of which is a URI for which the response representation includes all triples in the state of the resource named by the URI. Add a second new predicate, ldp:containerFullyInlined, domain ldp:Container, saying that all its membership triple objects' URIs have been inlined (i.e. it is a container-specific shortcut for listing each member URI using the first predicate).

13:16:39 <stevebattle4> Nobody expects linked data to be quoted.

Steve Battle: Nobody expects linked data to be quoted.

13:17:03 <stevebattle4> 0 (I don't think we understand the issue enough to decide).

Steve Battle: 0 (I don't think we understand the issue enough to decide).

13:17:07 <mielvds> in O.O. you are never dealing in different point of information, only when working with graphs and interpretations

in O.O. you are never dealing in different point of information, only when working with graphs and interpretations

13:17:51 <mielvds> in SPARQL graphs are an example

in SPARQL named graphs are an example

13:18:06 <mielvds> JohnArwe: there is a proposal, go through it!

John Arwe: there is a proposal, go through it!

13:18:27 <bblfish> previous resolution: inlining can loose provenance information when inlined - especially if the information overlaps. ( But even otherwise it is not clear what triples came from what resource )

Henry Story: previous resolution: inlining can loose provenance information when inlined - especially if the information overlaps. ( But even otherwise it is not clear what triples came from what resource )

13:19:23 <bblfish> ( one would need to make some very non-semanitc web constraints of how to interpret graphs - e.g.: if you said that RDF was not about graphs but about forward links between resources )

Henry Story: ( one would need to make some very non-semanitc web constraints of how to interpret graphs - e.g.: if you said that RDF was not about graphs but about forward links between resources )

13:21:18 <JohnArwe> need to amend: domain should be either ldp:Container or ldp:Page

John Arwe: need to amend: domain should be either ldp:Container or ldp:Page

13:21:24 <JohnArwe> thx SteveS

John Arwe: thx SteveS

13:21:58 <cody> s/SPARQL graphs/SPARQL named graphs
13:24:06 <stevebattle4> q+

Steve Battle: q+

13:24:58 <Arnaud> ack steveb

Arnaud Le Hors: ack steveb

13:25:26 <mielvds> stevebattle: linked data can change, in general we need: do I have current version, did it change?

Steve Battle: linked data can change, in general we need: do I have current version, did it change?

13:25:53 <stevebattle4> Yes exactly

Steve Battle: Yes exactly

13:26:06 <mielvds> Arnaud: was raised before, ETag issue, it was fully inlined with this ETag

Arnaud Le Hors: was raised before, ETag issue, it was fully inlined with this ETag

13:26:54 <mielvds> isn't it always true that you get a bunch of triples and that they change

isn't it always true that you get a bunch of triples and that they change

13:27:28 <Zakim> +EricP

Zakim IRC Bot: +EricP

13:29:01 <mielvds> bblfish: easily solved with quotation, go to turtle group and ask for way to do it

Henry Story: easily solved with quotation, go to turtle group and ask for way to do it

13:29:08 <stevebattle4> Can't we just drop inlining - it'd be simpler.

Steve Battle: Can't we just drop inlining - it'd be simpler.

13:30:29 <mielvds> Arnaud: 2things: 1) RDF working group is expiring, 2) limit amount of information, isn't that saying ...  subject is container